Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25372
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
DR.RAJU NARAYANA SWAMY IAS., – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
OP (CAT) 21 2023
LAKSHMI RAMADAS, P.RAVINDRAN (SR.), M.R.SABU, APARNA RAJAN, SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI ANTONY MUKKATH, RAHUL KANDAMPULLY, AJIT JOY, RAAGA R.RAMALAKSHMI, P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.), ANEESH JAMES, SAYUJYA
Promotion criteria necessitate complete documentation; unavailability of ACR can justifiably affect eligibility.
Headnote:
Promotion - Administrative Service - IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 - Section 9(7) - The court reinforced the criteria for promotion to Chief Secretary, emphasizing the necessity of ACR availability, resulting in upholding the Screening Committee's decision to deny promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior IAS officer, challenged the CAT's order denying him promotion to the apex scale of Chief Secretary, claiming entitlement based on 30 years of service and absence of adverse remarks in his ACR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Screening Committee's rejection valid as 90% of the petitioner's ACR was unavailable, thereby precluding a fair assessment of his promotion eligibility.
Issues: Whether the denial of promotion to the petitioner was justified based on the unavailability of significant portions of his ACR and whether he had a right to be considered for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that promotion processes are governed by criteria established by the relevant memorandum, and missing ACR documentation renders proper evaluation impossible, justifying the Screening Committee's decision.
Final Decision: The original petition is dismissed, allowing the petitioner to pursue his promotion after ensuring ACR availability.
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This original petition was filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench. The petitioner is the Seniormost IAS Officer and is currently the Principal Secretary to Government. He approached the CAT as he was not considered for apex scale promotion as the Chief Secretary. The Central Administrative Tribunal, noting the procedure for the appointment of the Chief Secretary, negated the challenge. This is how the petitioner approached this Court challenging the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. The learned Senior Counsel, referring to Annexure A8 relating to the promotion of members of the Indian Administrative Service, argued that the petitioner is not claiming an appointment as the Chief Secretary but only claiming a promotion to grade him as the Chief Secretary. It is submitted that in the absence of any adverse remarks in the ACR, he is entitled to be graded as the Chief Secretary on completion of 30 years of service as a member of the Indian Administrative Service.
3. It is appropriate to refer to the principles relating to promotion in the grade of Chief Secretary as referred in Annexure A8 office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel P.G & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training:
The zone of consideration for promotion in this grade would consist of all the members of the Service who have completed 30 years of service. Appointment in this grade would be made from amongst the officers thus cleared, at any time during the relevant year and subject to the provisions of rule 9(7) of the I.A.S. (Pay) Rules, 1954. The Screening Committee for this purpose shall consist of the Chief Secretary concerned, one officer working in this grade in the cadre and another officer of the cadre serving in Government of India in the same grade.
4. Promotion to the cadre of Chief Secretary will have to be considered by a Screening Committee. It is further mentioned in Annexure II of Annexure A8 office memorandum that all papers are to be put up with the Screening Committee. It is specifically mentioned in para.4(1) that 90% of the updated and completed ACR should be made available with the committee. It seems that 90% of ACR related to the petitioner was not unavailable. However, the Screening Committee considered the petitioner with available records and rejected his request for consideration to the grade of Chief Secretary. The Cabinet of the State Government approved the recommendations of the Screening Committee. Upon approval by the cabinet, the petitioner made a representation before the Government to include him for promotion. Thereafter, he moved the CAT seeking consideration of the representation. The Government considered the representation based on the direction of the Tribunal and rejected the representation. The petitioner challenging the rejection of the representation approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal noting that 90% of ACR of the petitioner was unavailable and considering that the petitioner had not challenged the decision of the Screening Committee, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner is a senior civil servant. He would have been aware that 90% of his ACR was not available. The screening committee was handicapped in considering his request for want of ACR. The petitioner has a case that he had submitted a self-appraisal form but nothing is available on record to show that he had submitted the self-appraisal form. The Screening Committee considered the case of the petitioner with the available records and found that performance was not satisfactory. As seen from various ACRs produced before this Court, and Annexure A8, the ACR has to be self generated and to be reported before the Reporting Officer. Nothing prevents the petitioner from generating a self-appraisal form and making the complete ACR available before the Screening Committee. The Committee will have to meet
