Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on March 11, 2024 said that administrative oversight ought to be left with the executive, when it comes to evaluation of an IAS officer, more so a senior IAS officer, which entails a depth of expertise, rigorous and robust understanding of the matrix, coupled with nuanced understanding of the proficiency required for the bureaucracy. 

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma said the overall grading and assessment of an IAS officer requires an in-depth understanding of various facets of an administrative functionary such as personality traits, tangible and quantifiable professional parameters which may include, inter alia, the competency and ability to execute projects; adaptability; problem-solving and decision-making skills; planning and implementation capabilities; and the skill to formulate and evaluate strategy. 

"These indicative parameters are typically then analysed by adopting a specialised evaluation matrix and thereafter, synthesised by a competent authority to award an overall grade to the candidate at the end of the appraisal/ evaluation," the bench said.

The court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment of March 18, 2019 which interfered with the 2018 decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal with regard to performance appraisal of 1991-batch IAS officer Ashok Khemka.

On June 08, 2017, Khemka came to be appraised by the reporting authority i.e., the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana and, accordingly came to be awarded,inter alia, an overall grade of 8.22. Subsequently on June 27, 2017, a divergent view was taken by the reviewing authority i.e., the Health Minister of Haryana who upgraded his overall grade to ‘9.92’. On December 31, 2017, the accepting authority i.e., the Chief Minister of Haryana rejected it and downgraded his overall grade to ‘9’ in the performance appraisal report under the provisions of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007.

The Haryana government was aggrieved with the decision of the High Court which expunged the opinion of the accepting authority, i. e., the Chief Minister; and restored the opinion of the reviewing authority; and the grade awarded for Khemka in the performance appraisal report.

"In our considered view, the process of evaluation of an IAS officer, more so a senior IAS officer entails a depth of expertise, rigorous and robust understanding of the evaluation matrix coupled with nuanced understanding of the proficiency required to be at the forefront of the bureaucracy. This administrative oversight ought to have been left to the executive on account of it possessing the requisite expertise and mandate for the said task," the bench said.

The court said in its opinion the High Court entered into a specialised domain i.e., evaluating the competency of an IAS officer by way of contrasting and comparing the remarks and overall grades awarded to Khemka by the reporting authority; the reviewing authority; and the accepting authority, without the requisite domain expertise and administrative experience to conduct such an evaluation. 

"The High Court ought not to have ventured into the said domain particularly when the accepting authority is yet to pronounce its decision qua the underlying representation," the bench said.

Holding that the division bench of the High Court erred in law, the bench set aside the judgement.

On being informed that the accepting authority is yet to take a decision on the underlying representation, the bench directed it to take a decision under Rule 9(7B) of the PAR Rules within a period of 60 days.

The court granted liberty to the officer take recourse to remedies as may be available under law.