Judiciary Must Avoid Unnecessary Intervention Qua Executive Decisions Involving Specialised Expertise In Absence Of Malafide/Prejudice: SC
|The Supreme Court observed that the judiciary must exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary intervention qua administrative decision(s) of the executive involving specialised expertise in the absence of any mala-fide and / or prejudice.
The court that a High Court should not have ventured into a specialised domain of the Executive by evaluating the competency of an Indian Administrative Services (IAS) Officer.
An IAS Officer (Mr. Ashok Khemka) had challenged the grading awarded in his annual performance appraisal report. The Health Minister of Haryana (Reviewing Authority) had upgraded the Officer's overall grade, but the Chief Minister of Haryana (Accepting Authority) downgraded it.
Despite representations and subsequent appeals, the Accepting Authority failed to take action against the representation made under Rule 9(2) of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (PAR Rules) by the Officer.
Upon appeal, a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court reinstated the grades awarded by the Reviewing Authority.
The Supreme Court stated that “the overall grading and assessment of an IAS officer requires an in-depth understanding of various facets of an administrative functionary.”
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “We find ourselves grappling with a foundational principle of our constitution i.e., that the judiciary must exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary intervention qua administrative decision(s) of the executive involving specialised expertise in the absence of any mala-fide and/or prejudice.”
Sr. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the appellant, while Advocate Shreenath A. Khemka appeared for the respondents.
The Court explained that the overall grade awarded to the Officer formed a part of the outstanding grade which was the highest category that could be awarded to an IAS officer. Accordingly, the Court held that “there can be no qualm that the said overall grade is more than sufficient for the purposes of empanelment/promotion.”
The Court remarked that “the process of evaluation of an IAS officer, more so a senior IAS officer entails a depth of expertise, rigorous and robust understanding of the evaluation matrix coupled with nuanced understanding of the proficiency required to be at the forefront of the bureaucracy.”
The Court held that the decision should have been “left to the executive on account of it possessing the requisite expertise and mandate for the said task.”
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court since the Accepting Authority was yet to decide on the underlying representation and directed the Accepting Authority to make a decision under Rule 9(7B) of the PAR Rules.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: The State Of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 190)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi
Respondents: Advocate Shreenath A. Khemka