Dayanand Kataria vs D/O Personnel And Training on 8 July, 2021

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras

Dayanand Kataria vs D/O Personnel And Training on 8 July, 2021

Rai a?

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH Dated the day 22 ® day of July Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT:

THE HON'BLE Shri S.N. TERDAL, MEMBER()} THE HON'BLE Shri T. JACOB, MEMBER(A} M.A SSIO/2 12/2020 IN & O.A.S1O/TS99o/ 2018 Dayanand Rataria 1.A.S, (TN-1989), Rio.A-1/12, SAF Games Village, Koyambedu, | Chennal- 608 107.

ow Apolcant{ Both in MAROA) _ (By Advorate: M/s. V. Vijay Shankar) V5. | Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to Government, | Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Dethi- 110 004.

Respondent (Both in MASOA) (By Advacate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. OGSC) Zot a?

QROER (Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, MamberW}} M.A.212/2020 filed by the applicant for advance hearing of the OA is heard and allowed.

2, The applicant in the OA has sought for the following reliefs:-

"Declaring the "360 Degree Appraisal" system ab indigo legal and void and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently issue directions to the Respondent for empaneling the applicant as. Additional Secretary to GOI w.e.f, 19/07/2018 [.e. the date on which the IAS batch of 1989 was considered for empanelment."

3. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant, are as follows:-

The applicant is a 1989 batch [AS Officer of Tamil Nadu State Cadre and has served for more than 29 years with outstanding career records. He was duly empaneiled as "Joint Secretary' in the y8ar 2012 along with other [AS officers of 1989 batch. However, despite being no dis-qualification, he was not empaneiied as "Additional Secretary' in the year 2018 when IAS officers of 1999 batch were taken up for consideration. He understood that he was hot empaneled as 'Additional Secretary' because of "360 Degree " Appraisal" which is a new component of empanelment process introduced in 2016. As the applicant was not given the reason as to why he was not empaneled even after his representation, he applied under RTI Act seeking certified copies of all the papers' including notice and correspondence under the relevant file and Rots?

aiso the proceedings of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) wherein his empanelment was dealt with, but his RTI application was turned down. His further RTI application seeking details of the members of the Expert Panel (EP) was also turned down. His empanelment as 'Additional Secretary' is extremely vital and entry-gate for censideration of Arture promotion as 'Secretary' to Government of India and Cabinet Secretary and, as such, he is prejudicially affected in his career advancement by the said "360 Degree Appraisal". The said appraisal system is contrary to the Central Staffing Scheme (CSS) dated 5.1.1996 and subsequent guidelines dated 61.01.2008 and it is inconsistent with various provisions of AN India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called "Rules of 2007'). Under the said Rules of 2007, APARSs are prepared by the immediate Supervising Authority who has supervised the working of the officer for at least three months of the relevant assessment year and the said reports are reviewed by the Reviewing Authority who has also seen the performance of the Officer for at least three months of the relevant assessment year and the Accepting Authority also must have sean the officer af feast three months for the year for which the APAR Is woitten. The applicant has been assessed by more than 8? Supervising Officers _ in his service career upto the year 2012. Under the said Rules of 2007, if the Reporting authority or Reviewing Authority. or Sora?

Accepting Authority has not seen the performance of the officer for at least the sald three months, then they are not entitled to write or review or accept the APARs; if the said authorities are required to write, review or accept the APARs, within a time schedule: In-

case they do not write, review or accept within the time schedule, they are disentitled to do the same; in case the entire process for the vear is nat com AISA before December, then no APAR shall be written for that year; In case any of this Reporting, Reviewing or Accepting Authorities were to retire, then they cannot Write, Review or Accepting the APAR after their retirement; for every year APARs attain finality in the month of December of the subsequent year and, thereafter, there is no question of reopening the APARs; there is no scope for giving any feedback under the said rules of 2007 by any persen who has not sean or supervised the work of the officer. The '360 Degree Appraisal' Is inconsistent .

with the said Rules of 2007 and, therefore, the said 2016, "360 Degree Appraisal' is capricious, opaque, unscientific, unfust and unfair. Further, the "360 Degree Appraisal' has been seriously objected by Rajya Sabha's "Department-Related Parilamentary standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice" in its 92°° Report. The said averments made by the applicant in this OA are as extracted below:-

A} The applicant belongs to the 1989 batch of Me Indien Auministrative Service (IAS), Reguiar Recruit, borne on the famil Nadu State cadre of the said service. Apoiicant is presently posted as Principal Secretary ta Government of fami Nadu, Department of Co-operatinn, Food & Sal et Consumer Protection, Secretariat, Chennal-cdcdaos. Over ive past 29 years, the appiicent has Aad an outstanding career record as an TAS officer and has discharged his duties with the utmost sincerity, aficiency, integrity, dynamism and creatidly. Ne bes earned an excelent reputation for his ability in tyke decisions quickly. imglement Gem sesolutely, deliver results and anprove systems wile maintaming cordial relationship with aff stakeholders.

8) The applicant was duly empanelled by the Government of India (Gal) as Joint Secretary to the Gol in the year 2012 along with such offer IAS officers of Me 1989 batch as were found eligiite for empanelment after 3 cigorous Process of scrutiny prescribed for the purpose, The post of Joint Secretary fo Gol is just one rank below thet of Additional Secretary to Gol and pyo ranks below that of secretary to Gol, The oviteria for the empaneliment for Joint secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary jeve! pasts ére exactly the same and are as stipulated in the Centra! Staffing Scheme dated O5,01,1996 and the guidelines dated 01.01.2008 for assessing the suitability of IAS officers for such empaneiment, C} To the utter surprise end dismay of Sie apoficant and despite there being ae disqualification whatsoever attached fo his claim, the applicant was nol empanelied as Additionas Secretary to Gol in Ruy, 2018 when IAS officers of he 1989 batch were fken up for consideration. The applicant's fame doesnt appear in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)'s Information Note No. 35/2/2078-FO(SM- iL) dated 19.07.2018 which indicates the names of 34 IAS afficers of the 1989 betch empaneled as Additional secretaries end 7 officers as Additional Secreteries-

eguivelent in spite of the applicant soaking a representation dated 21.07.2018 ta the DoPT to discioss ihe reasons for fis nan-empaneiment followed by a reminder dated 10.09.2018 the respondent Aas steadfastly nat disclosed the reasans for Me same.

DO} The applicant submits that be Aad been empaneiled es Joint Secretary to Gol in the vear 2012 which is proof fpar the applicant fed 8 fine career until that point ef hme Is fact even subsequent, the applicant had obteined only "GUTSTANDING' radngs if the Annual Performance Appreisal Reports (APAR) in all the years from art onwards. The apnicant's integrity has been impeccable throughout his 29-vear canser in the LAS, and no Vigwaace Enquiry was ever onlered or is pending agaist Ain. Therefore, there wes absolutely no ground far not empanelling the applicant as Additional Secretary fo Goi. The action of the respondent fa not empaneliing the applicant is arbilrary, unfeir end uniust, and &s refusal fo furnish the reasons therefor reveals lack of transparency, sincerity and accountability.

£} The apgicant understands that the probable reason why be wes not empaneiled as Addivional Secretary to Gol is the "260 Degree Appraisal" or "Multi Source Feedback" {MSE} dane by ihe respondent which is @ new component of fhe empaneiment process introduced in April 2016. According to the written submission made in the year 2017 By DoPT before the RalyoSabhe's Department-Relatie?! Fartiamentary Standing 'Camunittee on Personnel Public Grevances, Law and Justice during feariags relating to "Appraisal aad Empeneimant of Civ Servents under the Central Government, Hie "360 Degree Aonraisal provides for collection of feedback @bout an officer from a minimum oF 5 stakeholders such as Seniors, Juniors, Peers, External sivkehoiders and serving Secretaries by an "Experts Panel"

constituted by Gol. The Experts Pana! takes feedback on seven attributes which include decision making, awnership, pro-activeness, delivery, leadership, Aonesty and sullabiity for higher positions. Thus, the assessment of ths officer is "supposedly made pot just on Als ACRSAPARS. Aut aiso on the above qualities and his'her general reputation as determined dy ihe "360 Degree Aparaisal".

®) The applicant submits that the "360 Degree Appraisal component of the empanelment process introduced by Gat in April 2016 rests seiner on any legisietian nor any rides.

is nether transparent nor fair; end is neither reasonable nor relional it is the worst example of arbitrariness, lack of (rensparency and exercise of executive authority far in excess of the scope of any delegated Jegisiatian. It is a tool of discrimination by means of which Gol can capricinusiy exciude aay JAS officer not fitting into ts scheme of things.

G} The applicant submits i this regard Nat no jess a body than the RajyaSabha's "Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice" in &s 92° Report on the "Appraisal and Empansiment of Civil Servants under the Central Government" (2017) has observed as follows:

"The Cormmittee fads fhe present 360-Degree appraisal system. opague, naan-fransperent aad informally, making the process suscendble to being manipulated, further, the feedback received from subordinates and stakeholders may be biased and lack objectivity, particulanly if the afficer had to discipline fives subordinates or he was unable to meer Me unjustified demands of stakeholders. Further, acting on feedbacks so received puts the concerned officer in a disadvantageous position as the remedies available to Bim in case AR ASARYACR Ags Not hear written objectively are sat avaliable to him i Mus process. Acting on such feedback behind the back of Khe officer may not be legally tenable particularly F & adversely affects Als empanelment prospects. Moreover, there is fo statutory Backing fo the scheme end if is based on executive instructions only. The Committes, therefore, impresses upon the Government to take necessary Wann en sla aaa ace Pore?

Steas bx meke G6 process of empaneiment mare objective, Gananarent and fair."

Hi} The further proof of the arhitrary and whimsical manner in witch the "360 Degree Appraisal" is being done is established by the fact that officers who were consitered 'unsuitabie' by the Experts Pane! afer &s "360 Degree Appraisal" are somehow considered 'suileble' by the another Experts Panel after another "G60 Degree Appraisal"

within @ few montis. For example, in the case of re 2988 batch of JAS, out of Ghe offcers who were infielly overicoked for empaneiment as Additianal Secretaries to Gol vide DofT Information Note No. 38/2/2031 ?-EQISM-2) dated 13.06.2017, 6 officers were subsequently empaneied as Additional Secretaries and 9 afflcays were empanelied as Addiional Secretaries-equivaient vide DoPT faformation Nete No. 35/3/2019 7-BOKSN-I) dated 27ie20i?, A further 7 afffcers were subsequently empanelied es Addilional Secretaries and 8 officers were empanéiied as Additional Secretaries-equivaient vide DoPT information Note No. 35/2/2018-EQ(SM-1N(3) -- dated J9.07,2018 Since the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARS) are 3 'given' and Mere can be no changes ie them, Nie only change thal cowd have occurred within ihe few months must have been in the appraise! of the Experts Panel doing Ne "360 Degree Appraisal'. Surely, these officers who were inielly held 'unsuitable' by the Experts Pane! based on Mie ? attributes cowld pot Aave radically and dramaticady improved in these 9 attributes overnngat?! This shows that Gol is including, excluding and subsequently including names of offcers in the ampanaciment fist arbitrarily and in an opaque manner without adducing any fOaRans for they inclusion/exctusion subsequent inclusion.

£} Since the respondent refused to disclose the reasons far ite applicant's pon-empaneiment as Additional Secretary fo Gol, the applicant made a further attempt to ascertain ihe seasons by filpg e@ peiion under the Right to information (RTI) Act 2005 before Beek vide DOPST/R/2018/S3718 dated 20.07, 2018 seeking certified comes of ai Papers including potings and correspondence in relevant fe and also Ne proceedings of the Appaintnents Commitee of the Cabinet (ACC) wherein the matter wes dealt } and decided. But Nie ganiicant's *eguest for the saevant information was negotived. The aogicant fled one sors petition under the RTT Act 200s before DOPT vide DOPE T/R/201 B/S 3795 dated 24.07.2018 seeidng the detaids of the Members of the Experts Pans} who hed processed AS case for empaneiment as Additional secretary to Gol and also the details of sis subordinates, peers, stakehoiiers etc. with whom oe Members of Experts Panel had made enquiries regarding the applicant, Once again, the apolcant's request for the refevenr infonnation was negatived.

4d) The applicant submits that process of empaneinent as Additional Secretary to Gol, witch is an extremely vital entry-gate for consideration for future pramation as Secretary to Gol and Cabinet Secretary, which carry much higher responsibility in terms of territorial jurisdiction, ingernational interaction and scale and guantum of goerations. Since only the offtcers empancied as Additional Secretary are considered for the promotional post of Secrotery to Gal and jeter for Cabinet Secretary, the aon-

empaneiment of the applicant amounts te denis! of bis sightfegtimate expectation to be considered for the past of Secretary fo Gol and Cabinet Secretary.

kj} Therefore, he present Original Appiication is being Aled seeing guashing of the "360-Degres Appraisal' systent and the issuance of directions to the respandent for empenelling the applicant as Additional Secretary to Gel wel 19/07/2018 Le, the date on which the LAS Batch of 2989 was considered for empansiment. If is submitted that the applicant hes done due diligence and exhausted aff departmental modes of grievance redressal and has been left with no other aption than to aoprnach Mile Honourable fribunal, S} Grounds with Legal Provisians A, The "360 Degree Appraisal" is ab initio dlegal as # does not fave Ge backing of any Act or Rules and amounts to untrammelied discration being exercised by Gol.

8, The annlicant submits that the Government of Incle Aave issued OMs contained in the Central Stalf Scheme dated S.,2996 and subsequent guidelines dated 1.7.2008 setting oul and formudating Use criteria for assessment of LAS officers for empaneiment as Joint Secretary/Soddiional Secretary tp the Government of India. These guidelines fave been in vogue fore jong Nme and penodical empaneiment of IAS officers as Joint Secretary and above is done in accordance with Nese guidelines. While so, the unpugned "360 Degree Appraisal by the respondent in the form of an vaofficial notesinstructions cannot have Be affect of altering, superseding or overriding the existing quidelines which have the status of Office Memorseadums of the Government of India. Therefore, the dmouened assessment of the applicant made by the ressondent in accordaace with the unofficial note'instructions are sat fegal or valid and gre nonest and void.

i. Jn the case of APARS, Ure officer submits a detaled self- assessment report wivicd is scrutinized by not one bul Sirs] supervisory officers, namely, the Reporting Authority, Reviewing Authority and Accepting Authority and the officers performance, potential and integrity are. continuously and closely monitored aver the length of Ais career. The applicant Aas been subjected. fo such continuous, close and nigorous monitoring-cum- assessment for the past 29 years by af jeast (29 « 3) = 8F else Supenidsory Officers, The applicant was duly amipanelied '3s Joint Secrptary fo Gal in Me year 2032 based consistendy outstending career record, and be pas} "OUTSTANDING" ARR: bebveen the years 2012 bo 2018. So, ere §s no basis for overturning Ohis assessment of (he Spphsoar's performance, potential and infegrity done Oy 8F Supervisory Officers over a 26-year panod by @ single, ONe- a, assessment by the &yperts Pane! by enquiring just § so-cated slakehoiders fy wey af &s "360 ae Appraisal'. The APARS spread over a period of 29 years gre far Beller proof of the officers standing i respect oF the > alinbuies, samely, decision making, Denersiip, pro- activeness. delivery, feadershio, Aonesty and 5 i higher positions Sian any summery assessment made bY the Experts Aare. ff is utterly wrong an dhe part of Dork fe assume thal (he "S80 Degrees Aporaisal' cen capture any qualities of an aflcer better than the APARs System.

iG ony D, The 200 Aules raging fo APARS prowde fet me Reporting Authority and Reviewing Authority shoud write ther assessment only if dhey heave sean fhe cerformance of ihe officer for 8 aninimum oeriod of Miree manths, But sis retired officers foonine part of She Bxnerts Pane! can evaluate an officer even f Mery lave never worked aith she offeer under coasiveration and even when they are sot airecdy i) @ pasion fo meke any sesessrments oF Als performance, potential ar inwarty. 8 & a well-known rule of evidence thal hearsay evidence & pot valid ewdence. 'When the members of the Experts Bane! have no personal knowledge of the offer Gremselves and realy on the feedback about bin obtained from 8 stakeholders such as Seniors, Jumors, Peers, External Stakeholders anc Seng Secretaries, 1S Geany @ cass of hearsay ewdence, iF bhese SISKeIOYS Have aise 'at actually sean the ovine mm action and thelr gpinions about bis performance, patenGal and integrity are also based an Pearsey, Uren B becomes 8 case OF 'hearsay uoon Aearsay" Moreaver, an IAS officer such as the applicant with 29 years of experience Interfeces with thousands of stakehokiers during pis fong rereer, Byen StaGsucally speaking, & sample size of just S sfekehoteers out of several thousand & grossly Medequate, and ondiuaions dranct frono As eteustical insignificant' sone size i Bound fo Be erroneous. Fur nher. the § stakeholders enquired by the Experts Panel are not Rricy fo the sefessessment saponts suasuided by Ihe officer ened are bkely f give "oththe-culf' remarks ehich ane SubjecUVS, superficial shallow and grossiy inaccurate, would be a grave fevesty of Justice f overturn Me COnSigered, caidauaus, wide-ranging and objertive 2e- year assessment by way of ASANSs hosed an Mie. SLO, on-am, subfective, Aesarsey siddence Aesed an en ingdequale sample relied upon.

&. Further ie SPARS system provides safequards ag arbitrariness, bias end windictveness in asses f froviding for e@ transparent system of PEATESeINSUONS,. feviews ond appeals which can be Med by tbe aconeved Wof BF officer, But ao such safeguards are prawded if bis 360- Degree Appraisal system and ihe officer caa be candamnsd uiheard. If a seater or 8 junior or axterna! or other Staksholier is aggrieved wiih the afiter for sey resson and consequently gives & Sse and aisiesding feedback about afiners sitybutes Doha AS back, foe aSicer is sat is a} bositien fo kpow ato sat what, nor can fe represent geist the same. THs is again a wolation of die onocinies of natural justice.

Fy further he agodvant submits that the "S80 Degrees Appraisal bypasses Nie inshauGonal statutory mechanisms ike ACRs and Violence cleargace and renigces them with evsiuadons based on hearsay, whiins and facies of retired aicers aio are pradded wilh ae crediive onormatior ahout fie fuactioning of the officer vader consideration.

G Moreover, the "360 Degree Appraisal' & an coague system which even sntads felephonic feedback fam officers whe have no documenlmatenialfrepart' fo assess ihe officer Upon, Jf certala situations feecbeck can de sought from retired officers eho fave sought ne empiyynent in tie privete sector, which can lead fo confict oF gerest.

Nie Spplicant relebly understands that ae fess s body _ than Me Rajya Sabha's Dspartment-feleted Parlamentary Standing Committes an Personnel, Pubic Grievances, Law and Justice in its 92° Report on the "Appraisal aug Empenciment of Ci Servants under the Centra! Government® (2017) Pas observed as follows:

"The Camimiies nds oe present 360-cpcres HOON! SYSTEM opaque, Aen-transserent sre subjective ... Seedbeck in OHS process is ohtainer' informally, making Whe process susceptiive to béing manpuisted. Further, he feedback received fom subordinates and stakehoiiers may be dissed and lack objectiviy, panvculany if the officer Aas fo discipline AS subordinates ar As was unghie to meet the ungusihed demands of stakeholders. Further, acting on feeCbacks so recefved puts Nie concerned officer in & disadvantageous pasiion as the remedies svelable fo fim iy case Als APARSACR Ass not Sean written objectively are fot avalieble to him in this process, Acting on such feedback behind the back af the officer May AOl Os fegady lenadle partioulanly if adwersely affects Ris gmipanelment prospects. Moreover, Mere is no Statutory becking to the scheme and # is based on EXecuhve Ise uchkons oly. The Cannnittes, Merefure, iMgresses upon the Government fo take POMessny Steps fo make Me arocess of empaneiment more abfecnive, iransparent and fair,"

fhe witual rejection and strictures by the Pacliementary Cammuiee debunking the procedure as non-transparent a.

submission they have stated that the sald empanelment is not a promotion but it is a process of assessing an officer for holding senior position in Government of India and it has been done on the basis of recommendation af Special Committee of Secretaries (SCoS) under the Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary. For that purpose, SCoS is assisted by Expert Panel (EP) comprising of five Experts and that the members of the EP are carefully chosen retired officers of high merit and integrity representing various regions/cadres. Initially guidelines were issued in 2008 and to make the process more comprehens! ve and to ensure qualitative assessment of officers for their suitability to hald senior positions, in 2016, i was decided that the EP, apart from assessing the ACTS/APARS of the officers, will also assess the reputation of the officers in terms of their integrity, efficiency, suitability and leadership quality etc and, accordingly, guidelines for EP were framed. The said EP does a comprehensive evaluation of the | overall profile of officers and discern their suitability to eccupy senior positions at the level of Secretary/Additional Secretary. to _ The respondents have fled reply.

Ry or Sy and without any cle bese or guidelines base is @ categorical declaration af its being Hiegal Aull and vols.

id, Tins whole purmose of introduciie ine caonicious, Goague, unse entific, unjust and unfer "360 Deorpe Anoraisal* system seams fo be Nee elonvnation of oficers who do set Af the govemiment's schome af Giings. FP is sot ogen to Gof fo introduce -- an entrees diferent orocedure to overturn Ne consistent, Condinuvous, considered and carefly aporeiseal af an sepa perforpence, oatentia! and ingegnity as assessed by not one but By Giree superior officers under fhe ACRZAPAR system."

in Uke preliminary oY Government of India. [f takes input from a wide range of sources including, Past Performance Records (ACR/APRAR), Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) from relevant stakeholders and any other enquiries/deliberations as deemed fit by the EP and that EP ensures that the grading match the performance and achievements of the officer and that there {s consistency in the assessment and that they Rave to give their own @ssessment based on justification given/not given by the Reviewing authority/Accepting Authority. In Mulo-Source Feedback (MSF), minimum of 05 stake holders such as Seniors, Juniors, Peers, External Stakeholders and Serving secretaries are interacted by the EP to collect holistic MSF. The EP takes feedback on seven attributes including decision making, ownership, pro-activeness, delivery, leaderships, honesty and suitability for higher positions to be scored on a scale of 1 to 5 and, thereafter, based on a detailed assessment of ACRS/APARs, MSF from the relevant stakeholders and any other inguirias/ deliberations as deemed fit, gives a clear recommendation to the SCoS about the suitability of the officer or otherwise for getting empaneled. There is also a review mechanism to look into the cases of officers who could not be empaneled and thet the Review Expert Panel{REP) collects fresh MSF from at least 10 stake holders afferent from those spoken to by the EP. When the case of the applicant was taken up for ernpaneiment as "Additional Secretary' along with other officers of his batch, he was not recommended by ~ the EP. His case was taken up for review but, hawever, following the above seid procedure, the REP did aot recommend his case. Further, there is no allegation of malafide made by the applicant with regard to Ris non-ampanelment as 'Additional Secretary' and, therefore, in the absence of any such allegation, the applicant cannot challenge a selection and that as held by the Ron'bie Supreme Court, the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit over the decision Se of the expert body and as the said MSF is a policy decision, the courts cannot decide an policy decision. The relevant portions of the reply of the respondents are as extracted below:-

"> SOS Bumivy submitted thet empansiment © act = Dromoden Dut 6 process fp assess de suvtandiy of oicers for Aolding senior posiiions 49 Mie Government of bya.

Empaneiment at Seerstary/Addivonal secretory Lever 6 dons with (he anproval of the Appointments Conunittee of the Cabinet (ACC) on the basis af recommendations of Soecky' Commies of Secretaries (SCoS) onder the chainmansiip af Cabivet Secretary. For Us purpose, SCoS is assisia' Oy en Experts Pane! (EP) comprish go Ave experts. Members of EP are carefiiy chosen seNred officers of Aigh ment and teeny represent Gag various FEQIONS CORTES.

é. it is Bumbie submitted that as per ouidetines fer empansiment at Secretery/Adoivona/ Secretary ieve! issued i 2008, She EP was required to esamine ACRs ia getal and give Xs awn assessment of grading of oicers. in order {6 areke die process more comeneiensive and ho sisure qualiedwe assessment of offers far dheir suitability fo Aeld senior positions in the Government of india, it wes decided in 2018 that Me &P. apart from assessing tie ACRs/ ARARS of the officers, will alsp asress fhe reputation of the affeers iy terms of their ASO, efficiency, suitability and leadership quality, etc. § was also deciied that detelied guidelines may bs fumed in this fegara. Accordingly, guidelines for EF have bean famed.

3 itis further submitted that as per these uate. EP does a compnshensive evaluation of She overs' prof of offcers, and discern hair sultshiity to ccc Sosifons af he level of Secretary Additions S: vio ihe Government oF India, In doing 80, EP fakes inputs fom é wide nange of sources including:

ifort s?

i Past Performance records (ACR/APAR):

i, Muifi-Seurce Feedback {MSF} from relevent stakeholders: gad ui. Any other enquiries / deliberations as deemed ff hy the ER, While sssessing ACRs/ ASARS, EP. infer-alla, ensures that:

* The gradings match the performance and achievements of the officer in the light of Ste officer's self-assessment and the remarks of the Reparting Reviewing Accentiog ABLROFE Whetter the assessment given in one or hve years by 8 particular authority is out of tune with the overall tread of other ACRs/ APARs obtained by the officer from offer superior autores;

» Jn those cases where Reviewing,Accepting Authority Aas downgraded upgraded the grading given by Me Seporting/Reviewing Authority, §P is required to give is assessment Oased on the justification givanfnat given by the Rewiewing Authority/Accepting Authority.

#. Ris humbly submitted that with respect to Mult-Source Feedback {MSF),EP interacts with a aNnimum oof OF stakeholders such as Seniors, Juniors, Peers, External Stakeholders and Serving Secretaries ta collect Bolistic MSF, The EP takes feedback on Of attributes which include decision making, ownership, pro-activeness, delivery, leadership, honesty and suitability for higher positions to be scored an @ scale of 3 to 5. The EP captures esch siakehoider's opinion of the officer in prescribed MSF . forms. Each Aled MSF form Is attached with the Spal Pen Picture of each officer to make ihe system well decumented. In order to efich Aonest and. accurete feedback, anonymity and confidentiality of Stakehotders x ensured by the EP. :

5. &@ 8 further submitted that Me BP, Based on detailed assessment Of ACRS/APARS, MSF fram relevant Stakeholders and any other enguinies/deliberatons. as deemed Mf, gives a clear recommendation ta the SCoS about tie sullabllity of the officer or otherwise for getting empanelied. Thereatter, based on the recommendations of the EP, overall service recard, vigilance inputs, evaluation of qualities such as merit, competence, leadership and flair for participating in policy making process etc., SCoS makes i recommendations to the ACC for empanelment or athenvise.

5. His humbly submitted that to avoid injustice of any kind, a review mechanism is also in ploce to jeok inte cases of officers who Could pot be empgnelied at fie me af initiel consideration. Cases of suck officers along with representations submitted, f any by them are taken up for review by Review Experts Panel (REP) camprising & experts other than Chase on the EP. Like ES, members of REP are ais carefully chosen retired officers of high mant and integriiy representing various regions/cadres. The REP collects fresh MSF on the same seven attributes From at Beof SF feast 10 stakedaiders diferent from those spoken to by EP.

Like EP, REP also gives As clear peconnpencelins reganiing suitability of officers for empareiment on the Hasis af & ay sgoosumeny oF AU Rss APARS and MSP fran relevant stakeboigers.

#. fis submitted Wal the case of empaneinean of ie applicant was fiken up for assessment for empaneiment at Additional Secretary level along with the other oNicers of His Batch as per Ue extant guidelines. Nowever, after faking inte Bocuant the service recard, reconynendatioas of EP, vigilance status ete. and evaiuation of qualities such as ment, campetence, dadersine end far for partiogeting iY policy making process, Ae was sot found sullable for empaneiment at Additional Secretary level. As aiready submitted, Urere is a provision of peview of officers who oo fet get empanetied at Ne Ume of GINe! consideration. Acconingly, Me cese af applicant wes afso tyken up for review. However, after (aking into eccournt Me senda record, recommendations of REP as weil as EP, vigdance status eff. and gualives such as ment, competences, isadersiip any fair for particisating in policy meking frocess, be WSs agin aot recommended by SOoS for empaneiment at Additional Secretary level and the same fas been aporved by i8e ACC.

Tans is ao allegation af mulaiide in the empaneiment of officers as Additional Secretary end Mensfore is the absence of such speciic allegations, the applicant cannot challenge he selection and as held by Son'ive Suoneme Court, seitier tie Sigh Courts nor he Tiihunais can sit over the decision of experts body as appellate authority and thensfore, on Ne ground also this Apniication is Kable by be rejected, "

'46, IC is subouited Meat the Han hie Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. Samar Slogh and Otters, whilst considering the empaneiment for the post of Secretary to fhe Government of Indig ar equivalent post uncer Canta! Staffing Scheme had observed! ay under:

"ii. Tvs would show that the Camnnttes, keeping ja Wew the necord and experience | cluding Nes cancentuat and Jeadership abides, achievements and potenti! for gener managements pasivons, Aed recommended 19 LAS. officers for holding Sr post of secretaries anc > LAS. officers for holding 2 non-secretarial post. Merely because Ge pynutes of the GConynittee do sat contel the reason far non-seiectinn of Me rescondent does fat Mean Mal Vere fas beet Ao proper consideration of the Mets and sulablity of the respondent and as @ nest ' ihe selection is witiated. From the minutes of the Specia! Gommives, & i ewdent Mat m& che pitter af empaneiment of offoers fe Specie! Commites bes foken inte sccount the criteria that are iald down for holding such selection in para 14 of the Central Sts: o Scheme and, therefore, & cannot be seat that the sat eat ay sélection is vidlated on eccourn of man-inciusion of iis Hane of ihe respondent fede pave, The Hone Supreme Court in Sanfeey Babu ¥s NK. Santhosh (onder dated 29.10.2012) in Pare 18 Rela as "If is clear Gel fo @ malter of apoaintmentselection oy en Expert Coonmittee/Soend consisting of guaiied fersans a7 fe sarticular Aes. pormedsy, She Courts should be slow fo diterfere with the opinions expressed by fie experts, unfess there is any allegation of mois figes against Me experts who Aad conshluted de Swechon Committee. Admittedly, i9 the case an and, there 8 no allegation of piala Ades aoalnst tie 3 exoents in the Selection Committee. Ja such circumstances, we are of the view het 2 would normally be wise and safe for May courts fo jesve the decision of selection af Ns ature € be experts whe ans more familiar wh) Se fechncaives'noture of Se work. In ihe case an Aso', the Expert Commutiee evalusfed the experience cermicaies produced by Me appsiant Asrein, infernweived fie? by putting speciic questions as to direct gale. femme delfvernd xeroducts, asosplalty/service industry etc. and sivarded marks. In such circumstances, we fold that the Nigh Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert Communities.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court ia the case of Basavaiah {Dr.) vs. Dr. A Ramesh & Ors., raported in (2070) § SCC 372, poled out Mat fis @ settled fecal position that Counts dave to shea defersncs aad considerations io the recomynendations of an expert oommyites cansisting of distinguished experts in the Nefd, when tnere is no allegation of malefides, f would normaly be wise gad sefe for Se Couds & Jeave the decisinn af selection of Nus nature fo fhe experts. who ere arore familiar with Ge focinicadties/nature of Hie work. The Expert Commitee Aaving evaluated the experience certificate produced &y Nees cecdidate, interviewed Aim by putting speciic questions as fo direct safe, Aame delivered products, hosoltaiity/service industry efc., and awarded marks, Lhe High Court ought not to have sat as an apoetete Court on the recammendations mauie by the Exper Committee. Jf wes further Aeld thet the sigh Court was fot jusitied in upsetNing Sie decinon af the Sefection Committees, sariiculariy in She absence of any mavatides against ibe Selection Committee and there is no warrent for direction fo reassess the marks of the danevent therein afrest, in che Mont ef Me detaved expianadon offered by toe corpurstion about the aos af selection "

in National Institute of Mental Health and NeuroSciences Vs. Drk.Kelyana Ramen and Offers, Me Hoo ine Sugreme Court observed that i Se fipst place @f must be soled thst the AuscNon of he sélection comnvitee is neither judicial nar adiudicatory.

Palsy HS pursiy aomunistrative. The Mion Court seems to be in error in Stadeg Naat Nie selection commmites ought fo have given somes reascas for preferring Or Gow? Devi as against offer candivates, The selection Aas bean mage oy Ge assessment of reladve merits of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of candidates possessing the required effgihility. Thane is ne fule or regulation Brought fo our notice requiring the selection canumnities to record reasons, In the absence of any such fegal requirement! Ne selection made without recaning seasons cannot be found fault with. (also see B.C Nyigrappe Vs. Or 8. Venkolasubhaiah (2008) Ia SCC 36 f° =. The applicant has fled rejoinder to the reply of the respondents. He mainly stated that inspite of his best efforts, the details of the members of the Expert Panel or the members of the Stake Holders were not disclosed nor supplied to Aim, as such, he was not ine position to point out whether any of them had malafide intention against him or not. He further stated that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to by the respondents are of the years prior to 2016 and, therefore, they are not applicable to his case. The relevant portion of the rejoinder are as extracted below:-

4} IC i8 submitted thal the Respondent fas Aled 3 Raph Statement witch was nsomived by Mie Aanicant on ii.G.2038. The Respondent Ags made certain avennents uth regard fo questions of fact as well as questions af iw wich are tantamount fo suppressiover!, suggestiofgis! and which need to be countered progeny. Thersfore, @ has become necessary for the Applicant to Sle the nyoiwder sca &e 86 place (Se correct fects and jew Sefons Bis Noo hie PP, and hes completely glossed over the comments made by po less a body tan the Rajya Sabéa's "Department- Related Pariiamentary Standing Committee an Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice" in Ks 92°° Senort on the "Appraisal and Empanelment of Ch? Serveats vader the Central Government" (2015) witch the applicant hed eed in Para 4G) and 5(4) of his original Application. The Commilive bed abserved as follows:

Wat ar "The Commitee dads tie areseanto2 atgraisaf sysiem opaque, san-transs GO Dagnes Sent arn?

subjective... Feedback if NS grecess is 2 x is obtained informal, making re process suscepnbis to being manipulsted, Further, (ie feedback reoaived fron gubordiistes and stascholers may be Alesed & fack abjectily, particulady fhe officer Aad fo cscipyne AG subordinates or be was iwighbke fo meet the unjustified demands of stakeholders. Further, acting an feedbacks so received puts the concerned officer ig a disadvantageous position as che remedies avadoble to hun in case Ais APARVASCR Aas fat Been written olyectvwuy are not avedeble fo Ain in ONS process. Acting on such feedback behind the Back oF the olfcer may not be legally tenable Barticulanly if & adversely affects Ais empaneiment prospects. Moreover, hers ig no statutory dackin fo Use scheme and 8 is besed on awecutive insGructions omy, The Comnnties, Gherefore, impresses goa the Government fo fake necessary Sisps fo meke Ue process of ampaneiment more objective, freaspareant aad fair,"

pes a yhe cobegorvel siictures against Ge "G60 Oeoree Appraisal" system? by the Fanlementary Stancing Committees together with the Respondent's amission or inability to counter the Commuitee's observations amounts te an admission that the Respondent's case fas ne isg © Stand vpan.

&) 4 i submitted that powhere i fhe Renly Statement hes ihe Sesgondan stated a@aytiung adverse about tie Apotcant or pointed out any blemish in Als canser record. The Applicant had been ampanatied as Joint Secretary to Gay a the year 2012 which is proof that the Agolicant Aad 8 stellar career unt! thet psafet ef Gere. Jn feck ever suaseguenty, te Apolcant Aad obtained only "GUTSTANDING® ratings o) the Annual Performance Apereisal Reports ¢AP4R) in all the years from 203) onwards. The applicant's integrity has been impeccedls thraughaut is 29-year career ia the TAS. No Wiellence EMQUUY ies ever ordered against Aun, and As Ass Mie necessary Wiglance clearance. Nowhere 9 oie Repair Statement has She Respondent rebutted these cantentioas af the Apmlicant. Therefore, there was absolutely na graund for not empaneding the Apaiicant as Additional Secretary fo Gal. The action of fhe Respondent in not ampaneiiing the Applicant i arbitrary, unisir and unjust, and Ghelr refuse! ta fumvsh the reasons fherefor revesis ck of transparency, sincerity and sceountabidty. | #i it i submitted Mal the four Suoreme Court case iis cted by the Respondent in suonat of their dacisian not ts empane! the Agolcant as Adsitonsl Secretary aredaie ihe impugned issue of "360 Degree Appraisal or "Mult Source wey feedback" by several years and even decades. Therefore, thes ane completely irelevant to the present case.

8) The ratio of Ne four case ewes cited by the Sessandent is that nanmaily fe Courts should he sine to Interfere with ihe choices made by the experts constituting @ Selection Conuaties provided that @) Shere is ao Meuality or patent metendal freguionity In fhe coastftution of Sis Selection Comoniive or Lhe selection procedure followed by &, or GD there i ne proven male Ae on the part of any of the experts. fn offer wards, the Courts ane not enNtertl fo sit in Judgement over the choices of the experts a the absence of Mie exceptional circumstances ciisd above. These four case laws are, in turn, besed on Niree earlier hatgements of he Supreme Court in "The University of Nosore aad another v. C.D. Govinda Bao and another" (AIR 1965 Sc 491} "Oslpet Abasahsh Solunke & Oers v. Or ALS. Mahajan & Others" (2990) 2 SCO B08), and "Bk Jalen Union of India {1993} 4 SCC 179) For iestance, i "Beloot Abasaheb Salunke", te Supreme Court aed observed as follows:

oe @ candidate is OC for & particular gost or . tf hes f be decived Oy Ne duly constiined Selection Commies which hes tie expertise an Nie Subject. he Court hes mo seach expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can he interfered with only on spied grounds, such as Hisgedty or patent maternal gregularity in Me consitudion of Mie Comynilee or As procedure vitiating the selection, or sroved mais Ades afec tne the sslection etc."

Again, in "RRJain', Ge Sonmble Supreme Court Aas pele haat Ais concerned aniy with Judicial roweie" and pol mat review', and Mat Judicial review Us concerned with whether the incumbent possessed requisite qualification for appomiment and whether tye manner in whkh te €ppointmeant came to be mede or the procedure adapted was Ay, Just and reasonadie.

$) Phe apotcant ressectiully sugmiis Hiei (ie fous cass ies ced Oy tbe Ressandent ane actually adverse fy ther position and buttress the Appiicant's position because the impugned "SkG Dsoree Appraisal" system suffers fram "ilegally and patent materiel regularity othe conshiution of Mie so-called Expert Rane! and in as adoption of @ procedure that i unfair, UUSE ang unreasonable" thereby vidieting the selection, Even the Parlamengry S@nding Committee has held if to be so.

First, Ups "360 Degree Appraisal is ab Miho Mega! as # does not have Ge backing of any Act or Aules and aqrounts io untrammovied discretian being exerdsad By Gal. Tf is neither Gensparent nor fai; & melther reasanedle nor rationals is She worst exemple of sobiiranness and exercise oF executive authority oe i excess of Une scope of any SG of 37 velegated jegisielian, and is @ fool of discrimveahon dy means of which Gol con cagriciously exclude any JAS officer net fitting ito hs scheme of things.

Second, i te cease of Agnual Pefoannance Aparsise! Raports {AfARs}, Ge adicer submits eae defaded self assessment report which is scrutinized by not ane hut Mrree supervisory officers, namely, She Reporting Authority, Reviewing Authority and Accepting Authority gad the officer's perfermance. potential and inteanty ere continuously and closely monitored over the length of Ais Career The Applicant fas Seen subjected fo such continuous, cose and sgorgus monioring-cum- assessment for ie past 29 years by at feast (29 x 3) = &F Supervisory Officers. They ane the "real experts" when & comes to the proper evaluation of the Agpicaat. end nat the retired officers forming part of the so-caliest 'Experts Panel' who do the "360 Degree Aporaisal'. The latter are eyoiuating an officer even # hey dave never worked with hum end are not directly in @ posiden to meke any assessments of his performance, potential or integrity by relying on the oral feedback about Aim obtained behind Ais back from five stekeholders such as Senators, Juniors, Peers, Extemal Stakeholders and serving Secretaries. This Ss Geany hearsay evidence that is not admissible mn daw. BF these five stakeholders have also sat actually seen the officer in action and thelr opinians about Ais performence, poteaNal and integrity are also based aon Aearsay, tien becomes 2 case of 'hearsay upon hearsay thereby vitiating ihe 'selection' even further. If even the Courts are not supposed fo sit in Judgment over the choices made by the experts constituting the Selection Committee. haw can these retired officers wha have no personal knowledge of the Applicant sit in judgment over the assessment made by the "real experts" 1e. the 87 Supervisory Officers suread over & period of 29 years?

Third, an JAS officer interfaces with thousands af stakeholders during Bis jeng career. Even statistically Speaking, @ sample sike of Just Nwe stakeholders out of several Ghousand is grossiy inadequate, and conciusions drawn from tus "statistically incorrect' sample size ans bound to be erroneaus, Further, the Ave stakeholders enquired by the Experts Panel are mot privy fo the seif- asstssment reports submited by the officer and are Bkely fe give lof-the-cuf" remarks which are subjective, supeniicial, shallow and grossly inaccurate.

Fourth, in para 8 of the judgment in "Nationa! inshtute af Neatal Health and Neuro Sciences yv. Dr. K. Kelvana Raman and Others" (1991) cited by the Respondent. the Hon bie Supreme Court hed held as follows:

"ihe procedural fairness is the main requirement is the administrative action. The 'fairness' er Yeir procedure' in fhe administrative action ought fo be observed, The Selection Committee cannot he ar encetanmpepripeoepiccccé stood ber tet:

s.

nGlon €O ONS pNNCIDAS Ht must fake @ decision reasoneoly wihhout Geing guided by extrancoes or arelevant consideration."

fhe Agnlicant's contenGan in She present case is thet Me Respondent has not followed a Yair procedure' in ix "360 Degree Appraisal' system. if Avnesses the insiiutionaistalutory mechanisms bke ACRs and Wadeace Ceeraace and replaces them eth evahvatons basen an hearsay, whuns and fancies of retired officers waa ars oradded with no credible information about the Ainctioning of the offeer under consideration. it would Be a grave travesty of justice to overturn the considered, continuous, wide-ranging and objective 20-year assessment by way of APARS based an the superficial, one-off sublective, hearsay evidence based on 8 grossiv inadequate sample mated upon by the sc-caied Experts Pane. The "ed Degree Aparaisel" system canneal be an exception fo Ne Bringple of procedural fgimess. Thus, there & aetent legality and matedal ireguianty pot only in Me conshintion of the so-catied Experts Panel but aise in the procedure adapted hy &.

iQ) if pera ? af the Reply Statement, Ne Respondent Aas Seated: "There & ao afeoation of meievices A oie empaneiment of officer as Additional Secretary and therefore in the absence af such specific allegations, the applicant cannot challenge the selection and as Aele by Hon'ble Supreme Court, neither Me High Courts ser the ingunals can sf over the decision of experts body as appellate sufhonty and therefore, on this enoucd aise Nis Application is Hable to Oe refected. " In Nis connection, @ & suboniied Get whee Ure Apolcant Aed sought fier. under fhe RY Act. details of tbe members of Experts Sena! who fad processed AS case for empaneiment as Additional Secretary fo Gol and aise the detals of b& suboreinates, peers, stakeholders st ewifk ehom the Members of Experts Panel had made enquiries regarding the apoticant, the Respondent bad refused to funish tke same. IF te Resporent fad oieade Miess names avelsbks fo me Applicant, Uren the Aaniicant enuid have been in a position fo point out whether any af them bed mais Sole infeations against Rim or not. So, i is completely unfer on the part of Me Respondent fo say het Mere are no efegations of malafide wiifiout sven disclosing the comcemed semes fo fhe Applicant.

ii} The Respondent has stated Mat 'amipanaimenr is sot & promoebon Out @ process fo @ssess She sulteoliny of officers for holding senfor positions in the Government of indie, gad thet if is nat a matter of night. It is submitted that process of empanelment as Additional Secretary to Gol is én extvemiay wile! eniry-gate for consideration for fulure promotion as Secretary to Gol ant Cabinet Secretary, and sorvempancmenl of the Apovcant Nrough the "36o Degres Appraisal" system amounts to denis! of As ngailegtimats expectation fo be considered for Mie post Sear ee w Secretary fo Gol asd Coliset SECPELNTY. Procedural fsirness is (oe essential requirement of gay admvaisyatve action, god ue empansiment process cao be an excention fo tus principle. Sven the so-called 'review of fhe Applicant's non-empaneinent is wihated by Ge sane 'lsgalty or patent material rreguianity in {he coasuiugon 'of She so-relied Expert Panel" and in ds "adgeptian of 8 procediye® Ghalus unfein uofkist ond unreasonable" and in its utter Sack of transnsrency'.

& The respondents have Aled reply to the rejoinder of the applicant. in the said reply, they mainiy stated that the sald Appraisal process is governed by well laid down guidelines and is objective, fair and transparent. The members of the Expert Panel or Review Expert Panel are carefully chosen retired officers with high merit and Integrity representing various positions/cadres. The Ee does comprehensive evaluation of the overall profile of officers by assessing the reputation of the officers in terms of Integrity, efficiency, suitability and leadership quality ete by collecting a. holistic MSF from a minimum of 05 stake holders and in case of Review Experts Panel (REP), comprising a different set of 5 experts, who carry out another indenendent MSF from 16 stakeholder diferent fram thase spoken to by the EP. The relevant portion of the sald reply to the rejoinder Med by the respondents is extracted below:-

"y. Yann regard fo parseraph 4, & is submitted Mist fhe observations of the Rajya Sabha's "Department &eleted Pariamentsry Standing Committee on Persanne!, Public Grevances, Low and Justire" In ffs 82ned Reanort regarding 380 Degree Apsreisal System are a matter of record, However, 8s CHAR. brought Gut fa. ie srefirinery. sulnvsslons of the coualer realy Sed i the OA, # & refersted Ghat Are extant empaneinent process i governed by well ald out guidelines and is objective, fair and transparent. {¢ is also emphasized that 360 degree aperaisa!l does pot comprise Muly Source Feedback (NGF) 33 of a7 oni. Rather. the Experts Panel (EP), based on detailed assessment of ACRS/APARS, -- MSF fram. relevant Stakeholders and any other enguires/dsiberations as deemed Gt gives @ clear reconunendation ta fre Special Committee of Secretaries (SCoS) about fie suitability of the officer ar offerwise for getting empaneied. Thereafter, based an the recommendations of {he EP, overall service record, vigilance inputs, evaluation of qualities such as ment, competence, feadership and Nair for participating in policy making process, afc, tie SCaS makes its recommendations fo the Appolatments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). Finally. officers are empancied wih the approval of ihe ACC.

2, Wit regard fo persgraph 6 it is submitted Mat the applicant's contention regarding Ais unGlemished career record and impecceble integrity are not matters to be commented upen by the respondent. However, the contention of the applicant that ihe ection af the respondent in not empaneling him as Additional Secretary fs arbitrary, unfair and unjust, and refusal to furnish the reasons reveals jack of trensparency, sincerity and accountability is vehemently denied. In this regard, if is reiterated thet ihe applicant was considers! atong with other officers of his Batch for empaneiment at Addifionas Secretary level as per the extant guidelines. Hawever, afer faking into account the service records, recammendations of EP, vighance status, etc and evaluation of qualities such as merit, competence, leadership and fair for participating in policy making process, fe was not found suitable for empaneiment at Addienal Secretary ievel after due consideration. The case of the applicant was further taken up for review. After taking into consideration the service records, recommendations of REP as well as EP. woilance status, eft, fe was again not mecommended by the SCoS and ihe same fas been appraved by Me ACC. If is emphasized thet te process followed curing initial consideration as well as review was strictly as per extant guidelines and there is no arbitrariness or fewour shawn to anyone,

3. With regard to paragraphs 7 and 8, & is submitted that ihe applicant's claim is denied. AN citatinas referred ty is the reply fave contextual relevance. The four Susreme Court cases pertain to the Hon'ble Court's observations regarding recommendations made by the Expert/Selection Committee for appointment/selection bo senior jeves positions and these does pot deal with say specific procedure for empaneiment/sefection. AS such, the argument thet they are irrelevant to Me present case & misaleced, 4, WHA regard to paragraphs 9 and 20, 8 is suemitted mar ite applicant's submissions are Mmaceronriate and vehemently denied. It is reiterated that the extant process of empaneiment Is governed by well laid aut guidelines and is objective, fair and transparent. Members of the Experts _ Sa of BF Panel (EF) are carefully chosen setired officers of high ment and integaty representing various regions/cadres. Apart from assessing the ACRSAAPARS of the officers, the EP does & comprehensive evaluation of fhe averall provle of officers by assessing Me repuistan of Me officers in ferms of infegrity, aliciency, suey snd leadershig quality, eft by covecting 3 folstic NSF from a avnimum of 68 Stakeholders (such as seniors, Juniors, peers of the officer and external stakeholders as dawned relevant by the EP) whose Goonyniy and conidentighty are ensured in order fo elit honest and arcurate feedback. Thereafter, based oa the recommendations of BS overall service record, wigikace inputs, evaluation of quaiiiies such as ment, competence, isagershiio and Asir for particisating iy paviey nigking process, etc, the Special Comumittes of Secretanes (SC0S). Aesdst by Me Cabinet Secretery, makes fs recommendations fo Oe ACC for empeneiment or otferwise, Further, fo avald iyfustice of any kind. thers is a pravision of rewew of officers not emigeneled af the Mme of initial consideration. The cases of such officers are tyken up by Ohe Review Experts Panel (REP), comprising a diferent set of § experts, who canny oul enotier independent MSF from 10 stakeholders diferent fam those seoken fo &y the &8 Subsequently, bese' an fhe fscommoendations of RES and after carefiy consideration of . a8 otfier aspects as was dane dunag the inital assessment.

the SCoS makes is mxommendations to the ACC. Thus, te extant empaneinent process & a comprehensive, abjective and rational system encompassing all aspects for assessing (he sudabiky of an officer to Aold senior fevel Dosiions in the Government of Inala.

&. With regard f persgranh Ji, 8 is submitted tet the applicant's subsesion thet ihe orocess of empanciinent as Additional Secretary fo Gol & en extremely vital entry-cere for consideration for Adure empensiment as Secretary to Gof and Codinet Secretary i not disputed. Mis eawdant that the applicant acknowledges the importance of choosing oficers carefully for empeneiment at Additional Secretary evel, If & for Hus reason Mat Ge empansiment process des been Made more comprehensive as already axplained in reply fo (ie O4 and preceding paras in this present real. iis reiterated thet Lhe extant process of empanednant is governed Oy well iid dows guidelines incorporating 3 comprehensive evaluation of various aspects #ke overalf service record, wodeace status, quasities such as nverit, competence, isadership and Nar for participatien in policy - making process, etc. Therefore, ge antics process of empeneiment is msasonaile, objective, Ay anc Gensperent.

7. Heard Learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record and considered all the points raised.

IEE LODTN ET coco, Sebo oe ene en PRI og cetacean siete Dee, B5 0f a7

8. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the applicant vehementy and strenuously submitted that the sald 360 Degree Appraisal is not in consonance with the Central Staffing Scheme (CSS). He particularly brought to our attention paras 13 and 14 of the said Central Staffing Scheme which are extracted below:

"id. inclusion in fhe gseel of officers actucged sultedve for appointment as Joint Seerstary or equivalent would be 3 process of selection Gased on ge criteria of ment and competeace as svafuated by tie senior wiersiers af Me Committee/Board on the basis of the CR dossiers.

ADDITIONAL SECRET: VARY SPRCIAL SECRETARY SECRETARY a4. Selection for inclusion an ite panel of officers aciiucged

-- Sulable for appointment to the posts of Acciona! Secretary or Special SecretenySecretery fo Me _ Gowernment of Indie and posts equivalent Shereta, ail! be a@ppraved by the ACC on the basis of proposals submiticad by the Caivnet Secretary, In duis task, the Cabinet Secretary may be assisted by a Specie! Commitee of _ Secretaries for drawing up proposals for the consideration of ACC. As far es sossiive, panels of sivtanle officers wi! be UMW Up on an annual basis considering af officers of a sarticuiar year of adotment from one sendce sooetier ag 3 group, indusion © such panels wil be throuas dhe process of strict selection and evaluating of such qualities as mens. competence, mudersiip and a fair for participating in the policy-making process. Posts at Unese levels at the Centre Mled according to fhe Central Staffing Schemes are not fo be considered as posts for the betterment of promotion arospects of gny service. The seeds of the Central Govenwnent would be the paramount consideration. While due regard would Be given fo seniority, Aling up of any speciic post would be based on merit, competence aad the Specific sulabiity of the officer for a particular vacancy ip tie Central Government."

He further brought to our attention the following paragraphs with regard to the sald Appraisal of 2016 which are extracted below:

, ANNEXURE-F} Guidelines for SecrefanyAadihonal Secretary Goink Secretary Level Empaneiment including guidelines fer Expert Ssact Prime Minister Aas aporoved as follows:

{i (43

(i) wv fel) for the purpose of evaluating Ghe overall penfosmance, numerical yolues of 20. 8 8 and O may be assigned i 'Dutstanding, "Very Good. "Good! and "Averegs overal! grades given by the Reporting. Reviewing and Accenting Authorittes during Nre 24 year period from the cut-off dans, if frere are gaps in the avadediity af ACKs during {Als period dus to te officer Being an Study Leave or for any other feason not within Ge conten! of the officer, ef ieast iG ful years ACAs would Be taken into account by considering te ACRs of not more than § years gnmediately preceding (he period, In Soe event Grat itis sue not possible fo get 26 ful years ACRS. She case would be deferred wan! Hivs condition & foiived.

if the ACHs of an officer are auissing for 3 ar more years, dunag tie 4 year period cue te Ais being an eave other than Study Leave, Ais ampaneiment would be deferred und? he officer earns one mere ACR for cans of lass then $# years and hwo more ACKs for gags of 4 years or more.

Sesed on the sigtishea!l analysis done dy she Cabinet Secretariat, all scores whe working in the State Goverment would be multiplied by the moderation factor wine) is radio of Ube avergae grade of officers af a parNculer caure wile on Cemye!l deouletian fo their aversee race _ whee Ip he Siete. to obtain the 'moderated score.

For the purpose of calculating moderation factors, smatcr North fasten cadres Manipur-Trigura, Siddm and Negsiang, would be combined together to sraw valid conclusions, Simfariy, fie news: formed cadres Jharkhand, Chhattisoarn: and Uittersktand would be combined with Ghar, NP and UP respectively. The moderation factor would be veld for ome year. Tivs would De revised in ies beginning of each calender year fo f@&e inte account additional dete entered into the database during ihe course of fhe previous calendar year. OS On @ scale of 1G, the weighted (hy the number of years} average of (1) scare at the Center and Gi) moderated score wile in ihe cadre wil be an officer's numerival assessment soore, & 8st in 3 descending order of Ms sumeral sssessment Stares iwif Mien be prepared for conmnderation by the Special Cammittee of Secretaries (SCoS), The Senchmark will be a (a) minimum sumerical assessment score of 9.8 aid 8 nuAimuM average score of 9.0 on Central deputanion ¥ the period af such deputation exoweds 2.8 years but & fess (ian five years or (D>) averyge score of 9.3 for Centres deperenon of Ave or siore years, fhe Comurittee would also take info account the experience brome of officers, carefully scrutinize the ACR dossiers with Special emohasis on Me fest of nenarks conteined Is the ACKs as well as upgradingdowngrading of overall x vi} Gx) genera msputetion, ment, competence, jeadershin and a fer for participating in te policy making erocess fo recommend the dst of offinerss go be included in bbe pane.

Officers fulliling the prescribed Benchmark wil! be excluded if Mey are in Gbe folowing categories:

fa) those who are pot Included iy Ghe panel of officers fo hold JS level posts (fer empaneiment at the level af AS) or AS fevel pasts (for empaneiment at the level of Secrsiary)} af tee Centre. or :

(5) Mose who fave not worked an Centr denutetinn for e minivan period of three years et the evel of DS and ahve, or

i) Shose not vielence clegr, ar fd} these who fave less Shan hwo seers pestoual service on the IS day of the year in which the empanciment fakes blace for empaneiment at the fevel of Secretary. or fess fhan Mree years residual service for emmanaiment at fhe level of Additional Secretan, or fe) those who do not AWAY the requirements of Geuse 16 of the Central Staffing Scheme. Accomiing to Clause 16 af the Central Staffing Scheme "An officer whe i ar was an 8 fonsign assignment for a period of fvo years ar mare wil be considered for empanciment ef Nie level of Joint secretary ani ffon return from such an assignment fe Aas served fir a period of at feest hve years & Als cadre and has eared byo annual confidential reports thereon, Similarly, such an officer elf be considered far empansiment af te jevels of -- Addivaner Secretary Secretary after fe fas served for a period of one year ip Als cadre and hes earned one annual confidential Feport,"

However, officers whe deve Jess ghan she Peguited residual service but are offenvise found suitsble for empaneiment would be placed in a seperate category, Officers found sultaive for Aalding the posts af Secretary would Be given the pay of Secretary and pieced as Pencigal Adviser in Ministries, where officers senior to them are Aolding post of Secretary and Hey ail report fo the Secretary concerned, oMcers found sutséie for folding the post of Additonal Secretary would de oyven the pey of Additional Secretary and pieced as Seniar Adviser.

Cases of officers who wert on save, exciucing stip feave for more tan five years during ie Id-year period would be deferred. These cases woul! de coosigersd ony afer suffident sumber of fresh ACRs become avaliable to offset the period af She leave in excess of AMES years.

The sae of the ganel for each year ud be Bosed on thes number of anticipated vacancies during fhe nex? one cxf} Os} Gas) Boras year grovided thet the aumber af officers empanaiied ()} at the level of Addons! Secrelary shad generally nat excedd 40Se of fhe Baton sheen sad (4) at ie devel of Secretary shall generavy aot exceed 38% of Me batch strength.

in case the selection process does not fead fo adequats representation of categariss 8ke SCAST, women, pe ticular State cadres, fhe North East etc., in tie pane, the ovfeva for soipaneinent would be sulebiy revexcd ta give due representation to Giese. For UNS purnose. adequacy of representetion would mean ihe cunndenye representation it four batches Le. He quent beth and the immediately preceding three batches being less than 66 2/3 % of fhe a Indie percentages of empaneiment The number of offvers to be selected on divs Basic shat! fof exceed 25% of She suber inchaded fy tre pane! anc these selections would follow the process outlined above BlOSKR WILY sulaolv saeved Hons, Review will be conducted balch-wise. Cases wi! not bs faken up an an individual Basis, The reweas sho be ike? Up ance a year, No officer's case shall be token up for review more Man bvice. However, F Mera i 3 sgodicant change in tbe status of ACRs Ine particular case, COS may consider fe case after six manths avter empaneiment without wailing for @ segular review. Batch-wise consistency shal be mainisined ar fhe empaneiment, and subsequent radew sigges.

The above guidelines may oe reviewed after thras years.

2. if Me context of paragraph Iwo), & is clarified that wile oppiving the critena of fiwee-vear prior Central axpenence, PiaxaGon wil be ofeen fo officers 4) wie dave Sarier opted in writing f@ come to the Centre but whose names have nat been forwarded by the Cadre Controsing Authority fexcent where fie name Aas sot been fanvarded vue 3 wolsnce reasons), or G1) who Aave earher opted in writing fo Come to the Contre and whose names fave been forwarded by the Cadre Contraiing Authorify but save subseguentiv not been offered aonointment under Centre! deputation fexcept where offer for Centra! deputation pas been withheld due to woilesce ressons), Such relawation shall be given to the first tree batches taken uo for ompanelment for cach of Nie levels of Additional Secretar. and Secrelary from the date at these particular norsis Heve come inte force.

3. dn the context of paragraph I(wiNe), dhe emponaiment of officers cavered by Clause 16 of the Centra! Staffing scheme shed be considered in accorignce with the evaluation coterie in dhe Guidelines.

Solar 4 fa) There shes be en Expert Pane! consisting of Nve Experts in conpection with empaneiment ef Additiona; Secrefary level. 4 eux of panelists will be ensured, eof Persons who have been 7 recent fouch with administration aut {hose who may be from earlier balches aed perhaps better pieced for faving an outlook of unattached objectivii. Regional balgnce will alsa be another objective in sefection of Ne Sepert Panel as far as gossitle. The Expert Pane! will be required {9 examine the ACRs yeer- wise in deted for sach batch fo ensure Nhat Me gractiogs match Ge performance and the achievements of fhe c in ee AgAt of ie officer's self-assessment and the remarks of the Reporting/Reviewing Accepting Authorities, The Expert Panel wil also exanvne whether Hie assessment given in one or five years by 8 particular superior authors is out of line with the tend of other ACRs obtained by the officer from ober superior authorities. The Expert Panel will give Meir own assessments of the gradings of offoers for Gach year, which ail be baker into account by the SCOS in sulodly re-adjusting overall gradings for the purpose of assigning points.

(8) The Expert Panel will not be required to prepare 9 Ast of officers to be empanetied,

5. The process of enpaneiment wil! beat during the aeny Port of We year.

Guidelines for Experts Panel (EP) for evaluation of officers for enmpaneiment as Additional Secretary (aS) /Secretary An EF fas been constitvied with Me approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet? for assisting Oe special Conmmittes of Secretaries a) an juating the averad profile and suatabiity of aficers for emipaneinieant ar ihe level of AS and Secretary. The EP mil asset ine {DAassessing the ACRSARARSs OG) Evaluating the Overall Progie and Sumeaniey oF off {0} Assessment of ACRs /ARARS:

for empaneiment at the level of dddivonas Secretary 3 wy, ACRSYARARS of Id years are taken atc ace any Sear account which should have ACRS(ARARS for at months. JF there are gaps in the avellebility af ACBs during {iS period due fo the officer Being on Stucly Leave | :

ony offer reason not witin the comtro! of Me of . ACRSVARARS of net more then § years Jnumediate fy preceding UNS penod are taken into aconunt. EP is aeguined fo examine tie ACRSASPARS in detail. year-vise, for the Satoh wich § being assessed, and aive Re ae axsessmany oY ie gradings of tie offcer fr each pear Jn esse : the ACKSARARS, EP would be gudied by the follows S Points:

SO.of SF he gradings match He perfoomance *:

3. E&P wil ensure Shat the é aad acivevemaais of She acer iy Nes None of She officer's selfhessesament aad tie renwarss of. fhe Reporting/Reviewing/Acrenting Autharly.

ee &P wit aiso exsaune wicier Ge essessment given in one ar hyo years by 8 partioner auttarity is out oF tune wih Ge overad trend of oNier ACRs (A S4Rs obtained Oy She officer from offer sugeniar authonives.

ae ifs Reporting' Reviswing Authonty is known or appears to bs feral ar conservalive i her his assessment, CNS may De taken into comsideration wAllx assessing the SCAWAPARS. Whether an officer Ags Been Nhera! or CONSaIVaHVE COUN aiso be inferred from @ comparison with the other reports on the officer.

#. There may be more than one Reporting Authorty in case of same officers during @ particular resorting period. For exams, an officer im e Stats Secretariat may combine Several Charges and fis work might have been assessan by diviereat Reparting Authorities.

Sulleble assessment may be meds in such carey.

. o. {8 Mose cases where Rewewing Accepting Authonty bas downgradedfupgraded the grading given by the Reporting Reviewing Authority, EP is required fo give its assessment based on She fustficgvon givensnat over by Net Reviowing JuthorityAccepting Autority, a in case of ACRSVAPARS where the officer Aas submitted his sei-assessment in Ame, but the comments of Reporting/Rewewing Accepting Authority are ame barred, EF may give its assessment based on selanaraisal oF ihe officer. TRe comments oF Reporting 'Reviewing sccenting Authoniy may also fe conmered during such assessment, #7. While assessing the ACKs of upto 2005-09 fold systean w ACK) oblgined witts working in the Stales, special care woe seed fo be teken f eisure Moet offers of certain Cadres do not gst efter undue adventage or disedvantece due fo efther Uberal or conservative culture of gradings that Cadre. .

_&, & representations of officers ars referred to the &P by ihe Cabinet Secretariat alti segard io particular ACRISPAR, i would sullalvy assess such ACAAPAR after duly considering He represenianons.

(8) Evaluation of Overall Suitability:

cP wid co a comprehensive evaluation of the averad profile of officers, and discern thelr suflabilty to occugs senor positions af the level of AS and Secretary jo the Nees Ra ado anc Bh obay Goverment of fnois, fn wong $0, EP & © @&e inauts from @ wide range of sources including:

i) Bast Berfonmance records CACRYARAR). G) Multi-Source Aewrbeck from retevant stakeholders.

fh) Any offer enouiniescevheretions as deemed BF by tbe EP.

8. fo collect foliste Nult-Sourre Feedback (MSF) an She offeer being evaluated, EP wil leferact snhonicaiy) wih @ range of connected stukeholders, such as, ban'hs () Seniors, GD Juniors, (8) Beers, fo Externe stakeholders, and G9) Serving Secretaries. MSF & te be calected for across as diverse @ nance of Mese stakeholders as possible, covering not less Maan 5 peanks. EP iS 8 capture as: fakehaier's aavnion of Nie oNicer in 8 NSF format (enclosed at Annexure A), Aawng 7 Signe quesuons fo be soured on a 7 i § scale. Back Sled MSE form (minimum of 8) i to be attsched with Me Aral Pan Pitture of each ofes suited Sy Nie EP. EP is 9 assure MSF stakeholders of heir anonymity and confidentiality, fo alot fovest and sccurote feedhack."

oo He further submitted that the said '366 Degrae Appraisal of 2016 is 'Inconsistent with the provisions of AN India Sendres (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules 2007. Therefore, the said impugned '360 Degree Appreisal' is bad in law In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 28 in the case of 'Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora and Anr.' reported in (2014) & SCC 864 and para 18 in the case of 'State of Punjab and Others Vs. Anita and Others reported oan (2015) £SCC 170. He further submitted that ACR/APAR system is Ume tested procedure and it provides adequate safeguard in the matter of assessment of officers by the envisages furnishing of entire APAR to the officer concerned to enable him to make objections, but the impugned Appraisal of BE aE BF 2016 do not provide any of the above said safeguards. In support af the said submission, the learned counsel brought to our attention para 15 of the Judgment of the Hon'bis Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Rashinath Kher and Ors reported nm (1996) 8 SCC 762 and paras 36 and 3S? in thes case Dey Dutt vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725.

10. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the entire "360 Degree Appraisal' is arbitrary, perverse and capricious In view of the law lak down by the Hon'ble Supreme in Para 172, 176, 180, 221, 225, 264 and 278 In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress and Ors. reported in (1991) Suppl. (1) SCC 600.

ii. Learned counsel for the respondents equally, vehemently and strenugusly submitted that the functions of the Selection Committee is neither judicie! nor adjudicative and ks | purely administrative and the administrative authority is not under any 'egal obligation to record reasons. In support of his submission, he invited our attention to para -? of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of '"NIMHNS vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman' reported In (1992) Suppl. 2 SCC 481. Apart from all the points raised by the respondents in their counter and reply to the rejoinder, the learned counsel further submitted that it is not the functions of the court to hear the appeals over the decision of the selection committee and scrutinize the relative merits of the "Bole o candkiates and that ff is for the Selection Committee fo assass whether the candidate fs fit for a particular post or net. In suppert of the sald contention, jearned counsel for the respondents referred to paras 6 -10 and 12 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Samar Singh resorted In (1996) SCC (10) 555 and also paras 18, 22, 26, 31-34, 46 and 47 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dr. Prasannanshu vs. Selection Committee for Vice Chancellor, National Law University dated 25.09.2020 In W.P. (C.) No. 5497 of 2020, It is further submitted that the courts should be slow in interfering with the opinion Kpreesed by the experts unless there is any allegation of malafides against the experts and that in this case the applicant has not made any allegation of malafides and in support of this submission, the learned counsel for respondents brought to our notice para 18 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court In the case of Saieesh Babu vs. NK. Santhosh & : Ors, dated 19.10.2012 In Civil Appeal No. 7590 of 2072 (arising out of SLP (c) No, 13499 of 2011) and also paras 15 to 17 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Cammission vs. M. Sathiya Priya and Others reported in Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2014 dated 13.4.2018. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the challenge to the Mult' Source Feedback (MSF) guidelines fas aiready been

- considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Princigal Bench S4.af BF in the case of Jagmohan Singh Raju Vs. Union of India in G.A, 226 1 of 2017 and by the order dated 12.10.2018, the said O.A. was dismissed. The appeal filed by the applicant therein before the Hon'ble Nigh Court of Delhi in wie (c} No. 13808 of 2018 was also dismissed after considering various aspects of the said MSF guidelines by order dated 23.01.2020. Paras & to 13 of the said Judgment are reproduced below:-

- The question posed Sy iearned couse! for fhe Petitioner wes whebher € Wes een fo the Respondent fo ee May, 2016 8 by Sonus ee the MSE guides ines which were in fect not Ssued?

". Having perused Me MSF Guidelines in Holt af ths mutes of each of fhe meetings of the Committee of Secretanies, the Court is of the wWew thet fhe MSM Guesines were sof intended to Be 'issued e. plsoad in the public domain. They were Co serve as intenia! guidelines for Ne Commitise of Secretanies/Empaneliment Committee [CoS/EPC}, when As undertook Me fask of deciling fo empans! Adoivenal Secretaries. The precise question refed by tie Pehvener wos whether She MSF "guidelines were Yssued? Mihen os fect they were not 'issued', the answer in the Regative canal be sgt fo be incorrect. Au They, since Grey wong fo alt Me COSVEPC in carrying out Meir task, Mer use of arnving at a deasion cannot be seat 8) be egal &, Learmed counsel far She Petitioner produced Before Me Court an omer dated 12.02.2028 Asued by the Secretariat io the Agpoiniments Commitice of the Cabise? o4CC), Government of India, pursuant to tke onter dated 07% Gace mber, 4018 passed by Os Court i MAR ¢ Co} "S017. The sa order traces fhe entre process Ay wich Ge case of Me AetWener was considered for empanciment as Addins! Secretary on multiple accesions poor fo and after May 3075. iH atte refers fo Aye neconnpendations of the Experts Rane! CEP) es wed ax Se Review Experts Panel [RESO witch is stated fo "carry out @ fresh MSF exercise and also consider the reuresentations, if apy, sudmdiod by ihe oMoers* :

& AD ENS stage, mie Court would Uke 60 6e "produce the doer note submited in & explaining the work of Me REP. Fe stated as under:

"i. dn order fo ensure justice for dhe officers who ae sof empanied af MWe level of 'etary af the Gime of intial consideration, @ Review Experts Rane! (REP) wes constituted in August, 2016 which also comprises Rive revined Secretaries fo Gowernment af Indie, whe are diferent from Me maonbers of Exoerts Rene! (&P) thet assesses Officers at the sual stage. TBE Members of Ne REPS are carefiiy chosen fom amongst officers of gh Merk, repute and represent diferent rsqions/cadres of the comuttos.

a The REP follows Me same procedure as prescrived for ihe EP wih Se exceation Nie? for obtaining Mul Source Feedback (NSP) fur. connected Stakeholders, REP interacts with at least iQ stakeholgers (fe. MAP Number) ude are diferent fom fhe ones wih whom fhe EP Aad interacted af the Nme of initial assessment with Respect fo a partickier officer. The REP alse tekes indy account (he representations, § any, submited by agoneved officers. *

20. the fies produced before the Court contain bie Minutes of each of the meetings and the dafSerstons af both the EP as well as (ie REP as fer as Be case af the Petiioner is concemed. Para 1] of the onter dated 12% Rebruary 2018 correctly summarizes the position as under:-

"Alter detaved deliberaNons and taking jnty account ihe service record of the offlcer, recommendations of the EP as well as the REP, representetions of the over, evauation of Ale overs' guaities, the Camumnitee did not recommend his empaneiment at Additional Secretary jevet The Appointment Comanitee of Ge Cabinel has also anoroved noa- empenetinent of Sind Jegmohan Singh Ray at Addivenal Secretary level on 06.02.2019. ¢ Ik. Under Arucie 2268 of the Constitution, a Nigh Court has fo primary consider the validity of Me decision making | PFOCESS and NOt sO much the ultimate decision Bself The Scope of the petition before tee CAT wouie de oo oifierand as matiers of UNS nature, The Court is satisfied fet in Me Reutoner's case the decision making process i aan-vwiNathet for being unreasonable or arbitrarily. If wes not fir the CAT to NC if an appeal over the ultimate decision of the EE and the REP in agletios fo Me petiviener's emioanvenenl as Additional Secretary.

is. As fer as She confention put forth by She iearses counsel for [ae petiVoner about the non-issue of thea MSE guidelines is concemed. the Court fines OOS unmasonaile iy the respondents' action, for She messons set ouY Aer? shove.

13. fhere i nn error in Ghe impugned onder dated 120° October, 2018 of the CAT which calls interference, as such, BG 0f 3?

fhe Wet Petition is dismissed. The pending aanivetions are dissosed of "

ig, We have considered all the facts and grounds raised by the applicant and the replies fled by the respondents and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. We are of the view that the assessment process ar the decision making process in the above MSF guidelines has already been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (Para 11) in WP. 13808/2018 dated 23.01.2020 by deciding that it Is not vitilated for being unreasonable or arbitrary. Further, In Wew of the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the respondents that & being & policy decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has had that the Courts or Tribunals cannot go Into the policy decisions.

13. Judicial review in administrative action is no more res integra, Trite is the position of law that "it Is not the domain of the court to embark upon uncharted ocean of public policy In an exercise to consider as to whether a particular public policy is wise or 8 better public policy can be evolved. Such exercise must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may De.

i4. The applicant was considered along with other officers of his batch as per the impugned guidelines. However, after taking Inte account the Service Record, recommendations of EP, Vigilance status elc. and evolution of qualities such as, merit, competence, SP ofS?

7 jeadership and flair for participating in policy making process, he was not found suitable for empanelment gt Additionat Secretary level. The case of the applicant was further taken up for Review. He was again not recommended by the SCoS for empanelment at Additional Secretary level which has been approved by the ACC. Empaneliment guidelines provide that the number of officers empansled at Additional Secretary level shall ganerally not exceed 40% of the Batch strength. This implies that not all the officers considered for empaneiment get empaneled and only the best out of any Batch are considered ta man senior positions In the _ Government of India. The claim of the applicant does not merit consideration fram the point of view either of law or logic.

is. Inthe conspectus of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments referred to supra, we find no sufficient ground to grant the reliefs as nfayed for by the applicant. In the circumstances, the OLA, is liable to be dismissed and Is accordingly devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to casts.

wt dismissed as SaAR SN : Teele ote oT nett Sa On IS Nees el, SEASIDE SSNS ek ees SEE ESS, Lsnnpehngae tN Sane ggg camcctete teat are eee

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras

Dayanand Kataria vs D/O Personnel And Training on 8 July, 2021