2026 INSC 677

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 1 of 24

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 8790-8791 OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 10821-10822/2024)

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC

AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & ORS.

…APPELLANTS(S)

VERSUS

ANIL EARNEST …RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

Facts

2. The respondent (i.e., the Original Applicant) filed

an Original Application (for short, O.A.) No.

170/00727/2017 before Central Administrative Tribunal,

Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru

1 for quashing: (a) the

1

CAT

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 2 of 24

recommendation of the Assessment Committee dated

14.09.2016 and (b) Office Memorandum (for short, O.M.)

No. 4 PI/05(02)/2017 dated 16.11.2017; with a further

prayer to direct the respondents therein (i.e., the

appellants herein) to consider the promotion of the

respondent to the post of Senior Scientist with effect from

19.09.2012 along with all consequential benefits including

arrears of pay in accordance with Rule 7.4.1

2 of CSIR

Scientists Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2001

3.

3. According to the respondent, he was eligible for

being promoted to the post of Senior Scientist on

19.09.2012, but he was promoted to the said post only

with effect from 19.09.2015 vide recommendation of the

Assessment Committee dated 30.10.2018. According to

him, consideration for promotion to the post of Senior

Scientist is based on gradings in the Annual Performance

2

7.4.1 Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, a relaxation of one year in the minimum residency period can

be granted to a Scientist Group IV (2), (3) & (4) provided that he consistently secures 90% and above marks in the Annual

Confidential Reports (introduced under Rule 8.1) in three successive years in the grade. This provision shall be applicable

maximum twice in the career of a Scientist.

3

2001 Rules

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 3 of 24

Reports

4/ Performance Mapping of Scientists

5 earned

during the requisite residency period subject to achieving

the performance threshold score of 85%. These along with

the ‘Work Report’ are then considered and assessed by the

Recruitment and Assessment Board

6. It is the case of the

respondent that he completed requisite 4 years of

residency service on 19.09.2013, and in the last four years

up to 19.09.2013, he had secured the following

grades/PMS:

Assessment Year Marks Grading

2009-10 90.5 Outstanding

2010-11 95.0 Outstanding

2011-12 94.0 Outstanding

2012-13 89.0 Excellent

The average of those grades works-out to 92.1% and

thereby qualifies the respondent for assessment by the

Assessment Committee constituted by the Board for

promotion. However, the Assessment Committee, which

met on 14.09.2016, did not recommend the respondent for

promotion. Therefore, the respondent made a

4

APRs

5

PMS at some places it is referred to as ‘Performance Mapping Scheme’

6

The Board

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 4 of 24

representation which came to be rejected by the impugned

order / O.M. dated 06.11.2017. In the order dated

06.11.2017 it was mentioned that the Assessment

Committee after appraising the ‘Work Report” awarded

82% which was below the threshold of 85%. The case of

the respondent, who was the original applicant before CAT,

is that the Assessment Committee ought to have

considered APRs/PMS and awarded the average of 92.1%

(i.e., PMS score) and 82% (i.e., ‘Work Report’ score), which

would have been higher than the threshold of 85%. Hence,

the respondent is entitled for promotion from the date he

became eligible.

4. In response, the appellants, who were respondents

in the O.A., pleaded that consideration for promotion from

one grade to the next higher grade is in two stages. The

first stage is of screening the candidates by the Internal

Screening Committee, constituted in terms of Rule 7.5.2 of

the 2001 Rules, based on their eligibility for assessment

for promotion. At this stage, the marks obtained by the

candidates in their yearly APRs/PMS, during their

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 5 of 24

residency period in a grade, are calculated and averaged

out. Thereafter, their eligibility is ascertained with

reference to the threshold marks in terms of Rule 7.4

7 of

the 2001 Rules. If the average marks obtained in

APRs/PMS, during the relevant residency period, is equal

to or more than the threshold specified in Rule 7.4, the

candidate is recommended by the Internal Screening

Committee for the next stage, that is, assessment by the

Assessment Committee constituted by the Board. In the

second stage, the Assessment Committee, constituted in

terms of Rule 7.6.1

8 and 7.6.2

8A of the 2001 Rules, further

7

7.4 All Scientists will be first screened for eligibility on the basis of gradings in the Annual Confidential Reports

(ACRs) and only those Scientists who satisfy the minimum residency period linked to their performance threshold

scores as indicated in the Table below shall be considered for further assessment.

Number of years in the grade

3 4 5 6 7 8

Minimum averaged percentage of ACR scores for eligibility

Scientist Group IV (1) to Scientist IV (2) 85% 80% 70% 65% 60% …….

Scientist Group IV (2) to Scientist IV (3) …….. 85% 80% 75% 70% 60%

Scientist Group IV (3) to Scientist IV (4) …….. 85% 80% 75% 70% 60%

Scientist Group IV (4) to Scientist IV (5) …….. …….. 85% 80% 75% 70%

Scientist Group IV (5) to Scientist IV (6) …….. …….. 85% 80% 75% 70%

8

7.6.1. The Board shall constitute Assessment Committee to assess the work of the candidates whose name have been

forwarded by the Director/ DG CSIR, as the case may be, for the promotion to the next higher grade.

8A

7.6.2 Assessment Committee up to the level of Scientist Group IV (5) shall be as under:

(i) The Assessment Committee shall be chaired by the Chairperson of the Board. However, the Chairperson of the Board

can nominate one of the persons from the panel of Co-Chairpersons prepared by the Chairperson of the Board and

approved by the VP, CSIR to act as Chairperson of the Assessment Committees in his place.

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 6 of 24

assesses all eligible candidates recommended by the

Internal Screening Committee on the basis of interview

and/ or ‘Work Report’ of the candidates containing the

details of work done by them during the residency period.

Based on such further assessment, the Assessment

Committee awards marks to the candidates. If marks so

obtained by a candidate are equal to or more than the

threshold marks as provided in Rule 7.6.5

9 of the 2001

Rules, as amended vide CSIR Letter No. 7-14(2)/2006-R&A

dated 12.03.2007, the Assessment Committee

recommends the candidate(s) as ‘fit for promotion’, and if

the allotted marks are below the threshold marks, then the

candidate is marked as ‘not fit for promotion’. It is pleaded

that the Assessment Committee has discretion to devise its

own criteria to determine the suitability and merits of the

candidates considered by it for promotion. In respect of the

(ii) Two Departmental Core

Members

- At an appropriate level to be nominated by the DG, CSIR

(iii) Two External Experts - To be nominated by the Chairperson of the Board from the panel

approved by the RC of the Lab.

(iv) Director of the concerned CSIR Lab/Instt./Head of the Division at Hqrs. or his nominee.

9

7.6.5 The Assessment Committee shall submit its recommendations as ‘Fit for Promotion’ or ‘Not yet Fit for

Promotion’.

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 7 of 24

candidature of the respondent, it was stated that the

Assessment Committee had awarded 82% marks as

against the threshold of 85% required for promotion to the

next higher grade. Based on the above, the appellants

prayed that the O.A. be dismissed.

5. The CAT, however, allowed the O.A. vide order

dated 19.03.2019. While allowing the O.A., CAT proceeded

on the premise that it is the admitted case of both sides

that in the PMS, the respondent (i.e., Original Applicant)

had secured about 92% marks for the last 03 years, and

in the Work Report he was provided 82% by the

Assessment Committee, and therefore, the average of the

two, i.e., 92+82 would be higher than the threshold of 85%.

Hence, according to CAT, the respondent was eligible for

promotion. Accordingly, it ordered thus:

“Therefore, applicant is eligible for promotion from

2012 onwards on the specific date available for it. It is

hereby declared. A mandate is issued to do so within

the next two months. OA is allowed. No order as to

costs.”

6. Aggrieved by the order of CAT, the appellants filed

a writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 30846/2019 (S-CAT), inter

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 8 of 24

alia, contending that CAT had misconstrued paragraph

3(b) of the Circular dated 01.06.2011 to conclude that

marks based on appraisal of APR/PMS would have to be

added to the marks awarded by the Assessment

Committee on the Work Report to obtain an average

thereof and based on that average, the suitability/ fitness

for promotion is to be determined. According to the

appellants, paragraph 3(b) did not prescribe averaging of

marks, as suggested, to determine suitability/ fitness for

promotion, rather it prescribed consideration of APR/PMS

and Work Report of the period of residency. Based on such

assessment, the Assessment Committee had to award

marks of its own and if those marks are equal to or higher

than the threshold, a candidate is considered ‘fit for

promotion’. It was argued that since the Assessment

Committee, based on such assessment, found the

respondent to be below the threshold, it did not consider

the respondent ‘fit for promotion’ in the relevant year,

though, later, the respondent was promoted.

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 9 of 24

7. Although the High Court

10, did not find any fault

in the reasons assigned by CAT for its interpretation of the

amendment brought by paragraph 3 (b) of the Circular

dated 01.06.2011, vide impugned order dated 10.02.2021,

it modified the direction issued by CAT, to direct as under:

“This Court does not find any fault with the reasoning

assigned by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal

should have remanded back the matter after recording

the finding to the employer to hold a review

Departmental Promotion Committee. The Tribunal

could not have issued a mandamus for promoting the

employee. Resultantly, for holding a review

Departmental Promotion Committee, the matter is

remanded back to the employer and to pass an

appropriate order in accordance with law. The

petitioners are directed to hold a review Departmental

Promotion Committee within 90 days and from the

date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

It is needless to mention that after holding a review

Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner

shall pass an appropriate consequential order in

accordance with law.”

8. Aggrieved therewith, a Review Petition i.e. No.354

of 2022 was preferred, which was dismissed summarily by

the High Court vide second impugned order dated

03.11.2023.

10

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 10 of 24

Submissions on behalf of appellants

9. Assailing the order(s) of the High Court as well as

of CAT, on behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that

the High Court failed to properly construe paragraph 3(b)

of the Circular dated 01.06.2011 which was applicable on

the date when the promotion of the respondent was

considered. It was argued that the 2001 Rules provided for

a two-tier system of assessment for promotion. In the first

stage, candidates are shortlisted/ screened by the Internal

Screening Committee constituted under Rule 7.5 of the

2001 Rules. After such screening, the Director/DG, CSIR

forwards the names of the candidates to the Board. Rule

7.6.1 of the 2001 Rules provides for constitution of an

Assessment Committee by the Board to assess the work of

the candidates whose names are forwarded by the

Director/DG, CSIR for their promotion to the next higher

grade. The Assessment Committee, thereafter, assesses

the recommended candidates on their Work Report of the

period concerned and submit its recommendations as ‘fit

for promotion’ or ‘not yet fit for promotion’. Under the

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 11 of 24

amended provision, which became applicable from

Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessment had to be

based on APR/PMS and Work Report of the period

concerned, and the result is declared as either ‘fit for

promotion’ or ‘not yet fit for promotion’ or ‘promotion

deferred by one year’.

10. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the

case of the respondent was considered for the relevant

period. However, on overall assessment, the Assessment

Committee graded him at 82% which is below the

threshold of 85%. Therefore, he was considered ‘not fit for

promotion’. It was argued that both CAT and the High

Court have erred in construing Para 3(b) of CSIR Letter No.

1-5(1)/174(As Pr)/2009-RAB, dated 01.06.2011, as one

mandating averaging of the scores /marks awarded on

PMS and the ‘Work Report’.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent

11. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent, it was

submitted that Para 3(b) of CSIR Letter dated 01.06.2011,

which amended the 2001 Rules, states as follows:

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 12 of 24

“For other levels, within a pay-band, the assessment will

be based on the Annual Performance/PMS and Work

Report for the period of assessment.”

Use of word “and” suggests that there would have to be

consideration of APR/PMS along with the ‘Work Report’.

Therefore, in absence of any guidelines as to what

weightage is to be accorded to the marks awarded for

APR/PMS and the ‘Work Report’ in the final assessment

score, CAT had requested the learned counsel for the

respondent therein (i.e., ‘the appellants’ herein) to

elucidate the position. Despite the request of CAT, no

guidelines were shown, therefore, CAT concluded that post

assessment, recommendation would depend on the mean

of marks of APR/PMS and the ‘Work Report’. It is

submitted that the view taken by CAT, as affirmed by the

High Court, is a just and proper interpretation of the

amended 2001 Rules, and it does not call for interference.

12. It was also argued that if the interpretation as

accorded by CAT and the High Court is not affirmed, it

would confer unbridled and unguided power on the

Assessment Committee which would render the provision

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 13 of 24

vulnerable being violative of the rule against arbitrariness

enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the respondent’s counsel prayed that the

appeal(s) be dismissed.

Discussion/ Analysis

13. We have considered the rival submissions and

have perused the records.

14. Before we address the submissions, it would be

apposite to notice the reasons assigned by the Department

(i.e., the appellants) in its order/O.M. dated 06.11.2017,

whereby the representation of the respondent was

rejected. Reasons recorded therein are reproduced herein

below:

“1. The assessment of scientist is based on the work

report submitted by the Scientists of CSIR and the

relevant PMS of the candidates. Scientists are

assessed by a duly constituted Assessment Committee

as per Rule 7.6.1 of CSRAP Rules, 2001. The

Assessment Committee is a high-profile Committee

consisting of experts in the broad area of the scientists

concerned. Further, as per CSRAP Rules, the

Assessment Committee, inter alia, consists of Director

of the concerned Lab/ Instt. or his nominee as one of

the members, who takes care of interest of the scientist

concerned. The Assessment Committee has discretion

to devise its own method and procedure for objective

assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate

being considered by it. The assessment promotion for

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 14 of 24

next high grade is based on information input

furnished by the Scientists concerned in the ‘Work

Report’ submitted by the scientist which is duly

certified by the Director. Each scientist is assessed by

giving due consideration to the ‘Work Report’

submitted by him / her and therefore, comparison of

points with another scientist on any factor does not

arise. The recommendations of Assessment Committee

are endorsed by the Chairman, RAB and thereafter the

appointing authority of ‘Jr. Scientist’ to ‘Principal

Scientist’, viz., their respective Directors considers and

approves it.

2. Doctor Anil Earnest, Scientist, CSIR-4 PI was

considered in the Core Area “Engineering Science and

Technology at NAL 1, Bangalore for his assessment

promotion from ‘Scientist’ to ‘Sr. Scientist’ on

14.09.2016 for his residency period from 19.09.2009

to 19.09.2013.

3. The Assessment Committee after assessing the work

report of Dr. Anil Earnest, Scientist CSIR 4- PI awarded

him 82% as against the threshold mark of 85% (first

chance). Since he could not get the threshold marks for

promotion, the Assessment Committee recommended

him as ‘Not yet fit for promotion’.

4. It is further submitted that there is no provision in

the CSRAP Rules 2001 for further review of assessment

after it has been recommended by Assessment

Committee and approved by the Competent Authority

except for any procedural lapse.

5. In view of the above, the request dated 19.06.2017

of Dr. Anil Earnest, Scientist, CSIR, 4PI to relook

(review) his assessment promotion cannot be acceded.”

15. A bare reading of the reasons recorded in the

aforesaid O.M. would indicate that assessment of the

Assessment Committee is based on the ‘Work Report”

submitted by the scientists of the CSIR. It also records that

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 15 of 24

the Assessment Committee could devise its own method

and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and

merit of the candidate being considered by it.

16. The thrust of the submission on behalf of the

respondent is that Para 3 (b) of the Circular dated

01.06.2011 requires consideration of both the relevant

PMS and the “Work Report” and since on assessment of

the “Work Report”, 82% marks have been awarded and

PMS score exceeds 90%, the average of the two would

exceed 85%, therefore the High Court as well as CAT were

justified in passing the impugned order. Per contra, the

submission on behalf of the appellant is that 82% marks

have been awarded by the Assessment Committee on

overall assessment after considering the “Work Report”,

therefore, there is no need to average the marks to

determine eligibility.

17. Upon noticing the rival contentions as also the

relevant materials on record, we are of the view that the

main issue which arises for our consideration is as to what

would be the proper construction of the 2011 Rules post

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 16 of 24

amendment by Para 3 (b) of the Circular Letter dated

01.06.2011.

18. To address the aforesaid issue, it would be apposite

to survey the relevant rules. Paragraph 7.3

11 of the 2001

Rules prescribe the minimum residency period required to

be completed in a grade for being eligible to be considered

for assessment for promotion to the next higher grade.

19. In the present case, the respondent seeks

promotion from Scientist Grade to Senior Scientist Grade.

The minimum residency period for such consideration, as

provided in Paragraph 7.3, is 04 years.

11

7.3 The minimum residency period to be completed in a grade for consideration for assessment shall be as under:

Scales of pay Designation Minimum of Residency period

linked to performance.

Rs. 8000-13500 Scientist Group IV(1) 3 years

Rs. 10000-15200 Scientist Group IV(2) 4 years

Rs. 12000-16500 Scientist Group IV(3) 4 years

Rs. 14300-18300 Scientist Group IV(4) 5 years

Rs. 16400-20000 Scientist Group IV(5) 5 years

7.3(a) The period spent on deputation/foreign service to a non-scientific post and the period of leave including leave on

medical grounds, EOL, etc., availed on personal grounds shall not count towards the minimum residency period.

7.3(b) In case of permanent absorption of a Scientist on deputation in the same grade in Council Service from other

Scientific Departments where Flexible Complementing Scheme is applicable, the entire service of that Scientist in the

same grade including in the parent department shall be counted towards residency period. If an officer comes on

deputation on a higher grade into the service and later permanently absorbed in the same grade in the service, the period

spent on deputation shall be counted for residency period for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade.

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 17 of 24

20. Paragraph 7.4

12 provides that all Scientists would

first be screened for eligibility on the basis of gradings in

the APRs, and those who complete the minimum residency

period and obtain the performance threshold scores as

indicated in the table (refer to foot note 7) shall be

considered for further assessment. In the table concerned,

the minimum average percentage of APRs score required

to gain eligibility, in the category to which the respondent

belongs, is 85%.

21. Para 7.4.1 provides that notwithstanding anything

contained in the Rules, a relaxation of 01 year in the

minimum residency period can be granted to a Scientist

Group IV (2), (3) & (4) provided he consistently scores 90%

and above marks in his APRs for 03 successive years in a

grade.

22. It is the case of the respondent that since his APRs

for 03 successive years were above 90%, he was eligible for

relaxation of 01 year in the minimum residency period

required for consideration for promotion. According to the

12

See Footnote 7

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 18 of 24

respondent, he was eligible for promotion a year earlier

than in normal circumstances. And, in any case, he was

eligible for promotion w.e.f. 19.09.2013.

23. Para 7.5 of the 2001 Rules provides for an Internal

Screening Committee. The Internal Screening Committee

shortlists eligible candidates, basis their APRs, and

recommends their names to the Board. Para 7.6 of the

2001 Rules provides for an Assessment Committee, which

is to be constituted by the Board. The Assessment

Committee considers the “Work Report” and based on

such consideration assesses whether a candidate is ‘fit for

promotion’ or ‘not yet fit for promotion’.

24. It is not in dispute that by virtue of Para 3(b) of the

Circular Letter dated 01.06.2011, the Assessment

Committee was required to assess a candidate based on

his APR/PMS and the ‘Work Report’ of the period of

assessment.

25. In the present case, the Assessment Committee

had considered the ‘Work Report’ of the respondent, and

upon assessment awarded 82% marks which are below the

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 19 of 24

threshold i.e., 85% marks required for recommendation for

promotion.

26. The High Court and CAT were of the view that Para

3(b) of the Circular Letter dated 01.06.2011 requires the

Assessment Committee to consider both, APR/PMS and

the “Work Report”, therefore an average of APR/PMS and

the ‘Work Report’ scores would determine suitability for

promotion. We are afraid that such a view is not borne out

from Para 3 (b) (supra). What Para 3(b) requires is a

consideration of APRs/PMS and the ‘Work Report’ of the

period concerned. As to what marks are to be awarded

upon such consideration is not provided for in Para 3 (b),

and therefore, it falls within the domain of the Assessment

Committee which comprises of domain experts.

27. The view taken by CAT and the High Court that the

Assessment Committee would have to award average /

mean of the marks of APRs/PMS and the ‘Work Report’ to

determine whether the candidate is above or below the

threshold, in our view, amounts to adding words to a

provision. It is settled position in law that normally while

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 20 of 24

construing a provision of a statute, it is not permissible to

read words which are not there in the provision. Few

exceptions to this rule are there; such as, where those

words by necessary implication appear to have been

accidentally omitted, or where, without those words,

certain existing words are deprived of all meaning

13. Words

may also be read to give effect to the intention of the

Legislature which is apparent from the Act read as a

whole

14.

28. Besides, we do not agree with the argument of the

learned counsel for the respondent that if averaging of

marks of APRs/ PMS and the ‘Work Report’ for the

concerned period is not undertaken, the Rule would suffer

from the vice of being arbitrary. In our view, paragraph 3(b)

of Circular dated 01.06.2011 provides sufficient guidance

to the Assessment Committee by requiring it to consider

APR/ PMS and the ‘Work Report’ for determining whether

a candidate is suitable for promotion or not.

13

Craies Statute Law, 7

th

Ed. P.109, approved in Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 87

14

Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, (1988) 2 SCC 513

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 21 of 24

29. As far as consideration of APRs/PMS is concerned,

that is built-in in the two-stage process of appraisal

inasmuch as the Internal Screening Committee shortlists

candidates based on their APRs/ PMS for further

consideration by the Assessment Committee which then

considers the “Work Report”. Besides, in absence of rule

to the contrary, consideration of APRs/PMS by the

Assessment Committee does not mean that it would have

to award marks on basis thereof. Notably, Para 3(b) is

silent on how marks are to be awarded by the Assessment

Committee. Therefore, how much weight, if at all required,

is to be assigned to APRs/ PMS must be best left for the

Assessment Committee, which comprises domain experts,

to decide.

30. At this stage, we may observe that for a scientist

the ‘Work Report’ is of utmost importance. As to what

weight is to be attached to the “Work Report” may depend

on the nature of the work undertaken. A scientist who is

engaged in complex research may not be able to deliver the

desired result as compared to one dealing in a less complex

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 22 of 24

subject. In such circumstances, the Assessment

Committee, which comprises domain experts, as specified

in Para 7.6.3

15 of the 2001 Rules, must be left with

requisite discretion to determine whether a particular

scientist has performed well enough to be considered ‘fit

for promotion’.

31. In view of the discussion above and having regard

to the nature of the post, in absence of specific statutory

provision or instructions governing service conditions and,

in particular, award of marks for APRs/PMS at the stage

of assessment of suitability for promotion, in our view,

suitability for promotion must be left to be determined by

the domain experts and, in absence of rules, a degree of

latitude would have to be provided to them in their

15

7.6.3 The Assessment Committee for Scientist Group IV (5) and above shall be constituted discipline-wise as under:

(i) The Assessment Committee shall be chaired by the Chairperson of the Board. Only in exceptional cases when he is

not able to attend, he can nominate one of the persons from the panel of Co-Chairpersons prepared by the Chairperson

and approved by the VP, CSIR to act as Chairperson of the Assessment Committee in his place.

(ii) Director-General, CSIR or his nominee - Member

(iii) Two eminent External Experts to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Board

from the panel of the specialists approved by the RC of the Labs.

- Member

(iv) A representative from the Govt./Industry/NGO/Consultancy Financial Orgn.

nominated by the Chairperson of the Board.

- Member

(v) Director of the concerned CSIR Lab. (none in the case of Hqrs.) - Member

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 23 of 24

assessment of suitability of a particular candidate for

promotion. In conclusion, the process of averaging of

APRs/PMS marks and marks obtained on the ‘Work

Report’, as has been adopted by CAT and affirmed by the

High Court cannot be sustained. More so, when Para 3(b)

of the Circular dated 01.06.2011 does not envisage such

procedure.

32. At this stage, we may put on record that there are

no allegations of mala fide against any member of the

Assessment Committee. Moreover, later, the Assessment

Committee found the respondent suitable for promotion.

Besides above, there is no serious challenge to the vires of

Para 3(b) of the Circular dated 01.06. 2011.

33. For all the reasons above, we are of the considered

view that both CAT and the High Court misconstrued the

2001 Rules as amended vide Paragraph 3(b) of the Circular

dated 01.06.2011 in holding that an average of APRs/PMS

marks and the ‘Work Report” for the relevant period would

determine the suitability of a candidate for promotion.

SLP (C) No. 10821-10822/2024 Page 24 of 24

34. Accordingly, the appeal(s) are allowed. The

impugned judgment and order(s) of the High Court as well

as of CAT are set aside. O.A. filed by the respondent shall

stand dismissed.

35. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed

of. No order as to costs.

..................................J.

(Manoj Misra)

..................................J.

(Manmohan)

New Delhi;

July 10, 2026