Beyond Outstanding Grades: Service History Determines Top IAS Promotion.


23 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court recently in the matter of Raju Naryana Swamy v/s State of Kerala & Others upheld the denial of promotion to a senior IAS officer of the 1991 Kerala cadre to the Chief Secretary grade. The case, stemming from a decision by a Screening Committee and subsequently a Review Committee, highlighted the meticulous scrutiny of an officer's entire service record, even considering past adverse remarks and instances of indiscipline.

The appellant, an officer with an impressive academic background and the seniormost in his batch, was considered for promotion to the Chief Secretary grade in 2020. However, the Screening Committee found him ineligible, primarily noting the unavailability of 90% of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and the unsatisfactory gradings in the available reports, indicating a performance "below noteworthy" over the years. Despite being considered as a "special case" due to the ACR shortfall, the Committee deemed him unfit for the vital position.


 

 

This decision was further ratified by the Council of Ministers. Aggrieved, the officer sought a review, which was also rejected. The Review Committee, while acknowledging the officer's academic brilliance, pointed to at least five instances of poor ratings in his Confidential Reports concerning leadership and interpersonal skills. The Committee also noted records of his absence from important meetings and an observation in an ACR labeling him a "serial litigant." Furthermore, the Committee highlighted a significant period of unauthorized absence in 2019-20, which remained unregularized.

The appellant challenged these decisions before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and subsequently the High Court. The High Court, without delving into the merits of the Review Committee's decision, granted the officer the liberty to approach authorities for the completion of his pending ACRs and a fresh consideration for promotion once 90% of his reports were available.

In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel argued that the Review Committee had overstepped its bounds by considering reasons beyond those cited by the initial Screening Committee. They contended that adverse entries in ACRs prior to his promotion in 2016 should have been "washed off" and that the Committee improperly considered observations from a Fact Finding report and a CAT order that were not part of his ACRs.

The respondent-State, represented by senior counsel, countered that while 90% of the ACRs were indeed missing, the Committee was compelled to examine the available service record, including past ACRs, especially since only two ACRs were available post his 2016 promotion. They emphasized the unauthorized absence in 2019-20 as a significant factor justifying the denial of promotion to the highest administrative post.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing relevant guidelines and previous judgments, including Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, affirmed that while prior adverse entries generally lose their significance after a promotion (unless related to dishonesty), the entire service record, including post-promotion conduct, can be considered for promotion to the highest echelons.

The Court noted that the Review Committee's decision was not solely based on pre-2016 adverse remarks or the uncommunicated Fact Finding report. The unauthorized absence of nearly a year in 2019-20 provided an independent and valid ground for the Committee's conclusion regarding the officer's lack of discipline.

Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the argument that the Review Committee considered extraneous material. It opined that the Review Committee merely elaborated on the Screening Committee's rationale in response to the appellant's submissions. The Court also highlighted the Review Committee's observation that despite the officer's brilliance, he had failed to utilize opportunities for correction after earlier promotions.

The Supreme Court concluded that the decision of the Committees was neither mala fide nor so unreasonable as to warrant interference. It also noted that the appellant had not even challenged the initial Screening Committee decision. Given that the appellant's case had been reconsidered and rejected again in subsequent years by the Screening Committee, and the High Court had already provided an avenue for reconsideration upon completion of his ACRs, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The case serves as a significant reminder of the comprehensive evaluation process involved in promotions to senior administrative positions, where an officer's entire service history and conduct are subject to thorough scrutiny.