Holding

The Committee was entitled to consider the appellant's entire service record, including post‑promotion conduct, and its decision to deny promotion was a fair and objective assessment, not mala fide or unreasonable.

Summary

The appellant, an IAS officer of the 1991 Kerala batch, sought promotion to Chief Secretary but was denied by the Screening Committee because less than 90% of his ACRs/PARs were available and his performance was deemed unsatisfactory. He appealed the decision, first to the Review Committee, which upheld the denial citing poor ratings, lack of interpersonal skills, and a year-long unauthorized absence in 2019-20. The appellant challenged the Review Committee's reliance on pre‑2016 adverse entries and extraneous material before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, both of which directed reconsideration after generating 90% of his ACRs. The Supreme Court examined whether the Committee could consider the entire service record, including prior adverse entries, and held that such entries lose their sting unless they relate to dishonesty, but post‑promotion conduct showing similar disciplinary issues justified the denial. Consequently, the Court found the Review Committee’s decision fair, objective, and not mala fide, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant was rightfully denied promotion to Chief Secretary on the ground of insufficient ACRs/PARs and alleged adverse conduct.
Whether the Review Committee could consider adverse entries in ACRs prior to the appellant's earlier promotion and other extraneous material.
Whether the denial of promotion violated principles of fairness, non‑discrimination, and the procedural requirements under the IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016.

Legislation cited

IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was rightly denied the promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary. Headnotes† IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 – Promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary – Denial of – General Guidelines for Promotion etc. and functioning of Screening ACRs/PARs of an officer were required for promotion – Though 90% of the appellant’s ACRs were not written, he was considered as a special case based on available ACRs – Screening Committee found the appellant ineligible for promotion since 90% of his ACRs were not available

Subjects

Civil servicePromotion to the grade of Chief SecretaryPromotional grade cadreChief Secretary grade90% of updated and complete ACR/PARsACRs not writtenIneligible for promotionPromotion deniedSpecial caseImpact of prior entries in ACR on promotionAdverse entries in ACR/PARs prior to promotionDiscipline, decorum and collegialityFair and objective assessmentSelf‑appraisal formsService recordLack of integrityLack of disciplineInterpersonal skillsNon‑duty absence without leaveDefamation threatCollective leadership

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1723 : 2025 INSC 563

Raju Naryana Swamy
v.
State of Kerala & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3215 of 2025)
23 April 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant was rightly denied the promotion to the
grade of Chief Secretary.

Headnotes†
IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 – Promotion to the grade of Chief
Secretary – Denial of – General Guidelines for Promotion etc.
and functioning of Screening Committees – 90% of updated
and complete ACRs/PARs of an officer were required for
promotion – Though 90% of the appellant’s ACRs were not
written, he was considered as a special case based on available
ACRs – Screening Committee found the appellant ineligible
for promotion since 90% of his ACRs were not available –
Review rejected by Review Committee – Challenge thereto
dismissed by CAT – High Court gave liberty to the appellant
to approach the authorities for generation of 90% of the ACRs
and reconsideration of his case – Review Committee, if could
have considered the adverse entries made in ACRs/PARs
prior to the appellant’s earlier promotion in 2016 to the grade
of Principal Secretary and whether it considered extraneous
materials in rejecting the appellant’s prayer for review, as
alleged:
Held: The Committee was entitled to consider the entire service
record of the appellant while considering him for promotion to
the highest echelons of civil service – If the service record of the
officer post promotion shows a similar trend of lack of discipline
or interpersonal skills as reflected in the earlier entries, it may
lend assurance to conclusion of the Committee that the earlier

* Author
1724 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

promotion has not invigorated the officer concerned and he
continues to dwell in similar aberrations justifying the denial of
further promotion – Review Committee on examining the entire
service record of appellant noted that in 2019-20 appellant had
absented himself for about a year without justifiable cause – A
show cause notice was also issued in this regard – Said period
was treated as ‘non-duty’ i.e. absence without leave – This conduct
was taken into consideration to deny promotion to appellant to the
highest echelon of civil service – Thus, it cannot be said that the
decision of the Review Committee was solely based on adverse
entries in ACRs/PARs prior to promotion or on uncommunicated
observations in the Fact Finding report – Committee was justified
in giving due weightage to lack of adherence to discipline and
collegiality – Furthermore, on facts, there was a fair and objective
assessment by Review Committee after taking into consideration
both commendations and adverse conduct of appellant – Decision
of the Committee was neither mala fide nor unreasonable.
[Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 24]

Case Law Cited
Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [2000] Supp. 3
SCR 573 : (2000) 8 SCC 395 – relied on.
Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa [1989] 3 SCR 803 : (1989)
4 SCC 664; Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2010]
11 SCR 216 : (2010) 10 SCC 693; High Court of Judicature at
Patna v. Shyam Deo Singh & Ors. [2014] 4 SCR 541 : (2014) 4
SCC 773 – referred to.

List of Acts
IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016.

List of Keywords
Civil service; Promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary; Promotional
grade cadre; Chief Secretary grade; 90% of updated and complete
ACR/PARs; 90% of the appellant’s ACRs were not written;
ACR/PARs; Ineligible for promotion; Promotion denied; Promotion
to highest grade; Special case; impact of prior entries in ACRs
on promotion; Adverse entries in ACRs/PARs prior to promotion;
Discipline, decorum and collegiality; Fair and objective assessment;
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1725

Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Self-appraisal forms; Service record; Dishonesty or lack of integrity;
Lack of discipline; Interpersonal skills; Non-duty i.e. absence without
leave; Threaten to sue for defamation; Collective leadership.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3215 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2023 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in OPCAT No. 21 of 2023

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
R Basant, Sr. Adv., Subhash Chandran K.R, Ms. Krishna L R,
Raunak Arora.
Advs. for the Respondents:
V. Giri, Jayanth Muth Raj, Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Advs., Nishe Rajen
Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Ms. Sarvshree,
Ms. Soumya Sandilaya.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Appellant is an IAS officer of the 1991 batch in the Kerala cadre. He
has a brilliant academic record and is the seniormost officer of the
said batch. He was promoted to the grade of Principal Secretary w.e.f.
1.06.2016. The next promotion was to the grade of Chief Secretary.
The selection to the Chief Secretary grade is governed by Clause
VI of the ‘Principles regarding Promotion of Members of IAS’ as per
Note 1 appended to Rule 3(1) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016. The
zone of consideration comprises all members of the Service who
have completed a tenure of 30 years. The selection is to be made
by a Screening Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, one
officer working in the promotional grade cadre and another officer
of the same grade serving in Government of India.
2. The Guidelines framed for functioning of Screening Committee, inter
alia, provide meetings of the Committee shall be convened on a yearly
basis to fill up existing as well as anticipated vacancies in the cadre
1726 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

from the panel of eligible candidates. A combined reading of relevant
clauses1 governing the procedure for selection would show until and
unless 90% of updated and complete ACRs/PARs of an officer are
available, his proposal for promotion shall not be submitted to the
Committee. However, even if requisite percentage of ACRs have not
been written for any reason, the Committee is empowered to consider
available ACRs, subject to the appraisal of ACRs for equal number
of years in respect of all officers falling in the zone of consideration.
While making an assessment, the Committee need not be guided
merely by ACR gradings but is entitled to make its own assessment
of overall entries made in the ACRs. There shall be no benchmark
for assessing suitability of the officers for promotion.

1 General Guidelines for Promotion etc. and functioning of Screening Committees
“Cl. 4.1 The proposals should be completed and submitted to the Committee well in time. No
proposal for holding a Committee meeting should be sent until and unless at least 90% of the
up-to-date and complete ACRs are available. Every effort should be made to keep the ACR
dossiers up-to-date lest this aspect is advanced as the reason for not holding the Committee
meetings in time. The officer referred in para 2 above would be responsible for monitoring
and the completion of the ACR dossiers as per the extant instruction in this regard. In respect
of cases relating to confirmation and assessment of the work and conduct of probationers, he
would ensure the timely submission of the Assessment Reports etc.
Cl. 6. Each Committee should decide its own method and procedure for objective
assessment of the suitability of the candidates. While merit has to be recognized and
rewarded,. advancement in an officer’s career should not be regarded as a matter of course.
It should be earned by dint of hard work, good conduct and result oriented performance
as reflected in the annual confidential report and based on strict and rigorous selection
process. The misconception about “Average” performance also requires to be cleared. While
“Average” may not be taken as adverse remark in respect of an officer, it cannot also be
regarded as complimentary to the officer. Such performance should be regarded as routine
and undistinguished. Nothing short of above-average and noteworthy performance should
entitle an officer to recognition and suitable rewards in terms of career progression.
Cl. 7.1 The Annual Confidential Reports are the basic inputs on the basis of which assessment
is to be made by each Committee. The evaluation of ACRs should be fair, just and non-
discriminatory. The Committee should consider ACRs for equal number of years in respect of
all officers falling within the zone of consideration for assessing their suitability for promotion.
Where one or more ACRs have not been written for any reason, the Committee should
consider the available ACRs. If the Reviewing Authority or the Accepting Authority as the
case may be, has overruled the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Authority respectively, the
remarks of the Accepting Authority should be taken as the final remarks for the purposes of
assessment. While making the assessment, the Committee should not be guided merely by
the overall grading that may be recorded in the ACRs but should make its own assessment
on the basis of the overall entries made in the ACRs.
Cl. 7.2 In the case of each officer, an overall grading should be given which will be either
“Fit” or “Unfit”. There will be no benchmark for assessing suitability of officers for promotions.
Cl. 7.3 Before making the overall grading, the Committee should take into account whether
the officer has been awarded any major or minor penalty or whether any displeasure of any
higher authority has been conveyed to him. Similarly, the Committee would also take note of
the commendations received by the officer during his service career. The Committee would
also give due regard to the remarks indicated against the column of integrity.
The list of candidates considered by the Committee and the overall grading thus assigned to
each candidate would form the basis for preparation of the panel for promotion.”
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1727

Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors.

3. The Committee shall also consider any major or minor penalty or
displeasure of any higher authority conveyed to the officer in addition
to commendation, if any, received during his service career.
4. Clause 23 of the Guidelines permits review of proceedings of the
Selection Committee only if material facts were not taken into
consideration or if there were grave errors in the procedure.
5. In the present case, Screening Committee convened on 14.12.2020
for assessing suitability of eligible officers of 1991 Batch. Though
the appellant was to complete 30 years of service and 90% of his
ACRs had not been written, he was assessed along with other
eligible officers as a ‘special case’ based on his available ACRs.
Upon assessment, the Screening Committee found him ineligible
for promotion holding as follows:
“4. The Committee have examined entire ACRs/PARs of
30 years in respect of the above officers and found that
90% of the ACRs/PARs are available in respect of all the
officers except Dr. Raju Narayanaswamy. The Committee
also noticed that no proposal for holding a committee
meeting should be sent until and unless at least 90%
of the up-to-date ACRs are available. As such as per
para 4.1 of Principles regarding Promotion of Members
of the Indian Administrative Service and Composition of
Departmental Promotion Committees, the name of Dr. Raju
Narayanaswamy is not fit to be placed before the Screening
Committee for considering as the ACRs/PARs of about five
years are missing. However, Screening Committee has
verified entire ACRs/PARs of Dr. Raju Narayanaswamy
as a special case. The gradings/remarks recorded in
his available ACRs/PARs are also not satisfactory. The
Committee found that the performance of the officer has
been below noteworthy over the years. After detailed
discussion, the Committee, has come to the conclusion
that the name of Dr. Raju Narayanaswamy, IAS is not
fit to be included in the panel for promotion to the Apex
Scale i.e. Chief Secretary Grade of IAS, the vital position
in Administration. Hence, the Committee has decided not
to recommend his name.”
6. Aforesaid decision of the Screening Committee was approved by
the Council of Ministers.
1728 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

7. Being aggrieved by the decision, appellant made a representation
for review under Clause 23 of the Guidelines (supra). Since no steps
were taken, appellant approached Central Administrative Tribunal.2
CAT disposed of the matter directing the Review Committee to take
a decision on the representation of the appellant within three months.
8. Appellant being one of the seniormost officers, the Review Committee
comprised the then Chief Secretary of the State. Appellant was given
an opportunity of hearing before the hearing officer. After considering
the report of the hearing officer, the Review Committee by order dated
27.04.2021 rejected the application, inter alia, holding as follows:
“5. On examining the report of the hearing officer, it is
found that, there have been at least five instances where
the officer has been rated poorly by the officials in the
chain of command writing his Confidential Reports and his
leadership quality and interpersonal skills have been rated
as not befitting an officer who has to lead a team. Also,
there have been records in the ACRs/PARs regarding his
absence from important meetings. The officer has been
observed to be a serial litigant as per an ACRs/PARs. The
officer in course of hearing threatened that he would be
filing cases for defamation against the officers who wrote
his ACRs/PARs. During the service period, the ACRs/PARs
of the officer are not available for eleven instances. Among
them 01.01.2001 to 16.09.2002 (1 year 8 months 16 days)
& 27.6.2008 to 31.03.2010 (1 year 9 months and 5 days)
are the longest periods in which the APARs of the officer are
not available. Further, during the period from 19.3.2019 to
17.3.2020, the Officer has been on unauthorised absence
which has not been regularised so far.”
9. Review Committee further noted the adverse remarks in the ACRs/
PARs were substantiated by relevant records. Other than ACRs/
PARs, the Committee observed instances of lack of interpersonal
skills evident from the conclusion of the Fact Finding report and
observations by CAT3 enumerating detailed instances of indiscipline
and improprieties of the officer.

2 Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’ for short), Ernakulam Bench in O.A. 110/2021.
3 CAT, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 310/1011/2019.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1729

Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors.

10. Aggrieved by such decision, appellant approached CAT.4 CAT
dismissed the application which was challenged by appellant before
the High Court.
11. The High Court noted 90% of appellant’s ACR were not available
and the Screening Committee was handicapped in considering his
case for want of ACRs. The Court also observed appellant failed to
demonstrate that he had submitted self-appraisal forms for preparing
ACRs. Accordingly, High Court without going into the correctness of
the decision of the Review Committee gave liberty to appellant to
approach the authorities for preparation of his ACRs and consider his
promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary after ensuring availability
of 90% of his ACRs.
12. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Subhash Chandran,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant contend the Review
Committee travelled beyond the reasons recorded by Screening
Committee to justify rejection of claim for promotion. Instead
of assessing the appellant solely on his post-2016 grading i.e.
‘outstanding’ and ‘very good’, Committee relied on adverse entries
prior to 2016 which had been ‘washed off’ pursuant to appellant’s
promotion. The Review Committee also illegally took into consideration
the observations in the Fact Finding report, which was neither a part
of ACRs nor communicated to the appellant. Even the findings in
the CAT order5 not being a part of the ACRs ought not to have
been looked into. These are serious procedural irregularities which
were glossed over by the High Court. Without examining the matter
from this perspective, High Court merely gave appellant liberty to
approach the authorities for fresh consideration after generation of
90% of ACRs.
13. In reply, Mr. Giri with Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned Senior Counsels
for the respondent-State argued though 90% of appellant’s ACRs
were not written, he was considered as a ‘special case’. Post his
promotion in 2016, only two ACRs were available. This necessitated
the Committee to look into prior ACRs/PARs of the appellant. Even
if one ignores the notings in prior ACRs, service records for 2019-20
show the appellant had unauthorizedly absented himself for about

4 CAT, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. 180/199/2021.
5 CAT, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 310/1011/2019
1730 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

a year i.e. from 19.03.2019 to 16.03.2020. Promotion to the highest
grade i.e. Chief Secretary grade is a sensitive matter and requires
examination of the entire service record. Respondents 3 and 4 have
also supported these contentions through their written submissions.
14. The nub of the challenge thrown to the decision of the Review
Committee is that it had considered additional/extraneous materials
in rejecting the appellant’s prayer for review.
15. It is contended the Review Committee could not have considered
the adverse entries made in ACRs/PARs prior to the appellant’s
promotion in 2016.
16. In support of the plea, reliance is placed on Baidyanath Mahapatra v.
State of Orissa,6 Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.7
and High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Shyam Deo Singh & Ors.8
Cited authorities deal with impact of pre-promotion adverse entries
in ACRs on the issue of compulsory retirement, though in passing
it is observed such prior entries may not be considered for further
promotion.
17. In Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.9 the impact of
prior entries in ACRs on promotion squarely fell for decision. This
Court summarized the law as:
“58. From the above judgments, the following principles
can be summarised:
(1) Under Article 16 of the Constitution, right to be
“considered” for promotion is a fundamental right. It is not
the mere “consideration” for promotion that is important but
the “consideration” must be “fair” according to established
principles governing service jurisprudence.
(2) Courts will not interfere with assessment made by
Departmental Promotion Committees unless the aggrieved
officer establishes that the non-promotion was bad
according to Wednesbury principles or it was mala fides.

6 [1989] 3 SCR 803 : (1989) 4 SCC 664
7 [2010] 11 SCR 216 : (2010) 10 SCC 693
8 [2014] 4 SCR 541 : (2014) 4 SCC 773
9 (2000) 8 SCC 395
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1731

Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors.

(3) Adverse remarks of an officer for the entire period of
service can be taken into consideration while promoting an
officer or while passing an order of compulsory retirement.
But the weight which must be attached to the adverse
remarks depends upon certain sound principles of fairness.
(4) If the adverse remarks relate to a distant past and relate
to remarks such as his not putting his maximum effort or
so on, then those remarks cannot be given weight after
a long distance of time, particularly if there are no such
remarks during the period before his promotion. This is
the position even in cases of compulsory retirement.
(5) If the adverse remarks relate to a period prior to an
earlier promotion they must be treated as having lost their
sting and as weak material, subject however to the rider
that if they related to dishonesty or lack of integrity they
can be considered to have not lost their strength fully so
as to be ignored altogether.
(6) Uncommunicated adverse remarks could be relied
upon even if no opportunity was given to represent against
them before an order of compulsory retirement is passed.”
(Emphasis supplied)

18. Applying the ratio to the facts of the case, it appears that the
Committee was entitled to consider the entire service record of the
appellant while considering him for promotion to the highest echelons
of civil service. But the adverse entries prior to his earlier promotion
would lose their sting and be treated as ‘weak material’ unless they
relate to dishonesty or lack of integrity.
19. Admittedly, adverse entries in ACRs prior to earlier promotion in 2016
do not relate to dishonesty and cannot by themselves constitute
a ground to deny promotion to the next higher grade. But if the
service record of the officer post promotion shows a similar trend
of lack of discipline or interpersonal skills as reflected in the earlier
entries, it may lend assurance to conclusion of the Committee that
the earlier promotion has not invigorated the officer concerned and
he continues to dwell in similar aberrations justifying the denial of
further promotion.
1732 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

20. The Review Committee had examined the entire service record of
appellant and noted that in 2019-20 appellant had absented himself
for about a year without justifiable cause. A show cause notice was
also issued in this regard. Subsequently the said period has been
treated as ‘non-duty’ i.e. absence without leave. This conduct was
taken into consideration to deny promotion to appellant to the highest
echelon of civil service. It cannot be said that the decision of the
Review Committee was solely based on adverse entries in ACRs/
PARs prior to promotion or on uncommunicated observations in the
Fact Finding report.
21. The submission that the Review Committee looked into additional
material and supplied new reasons to justify denial of promotion
is erroneous. The rationale expressed by Screening Committee
was merely amplified by the Review Committee in light of the
submissions and material placed by appellant. During hearing of
his review application, appellant alleged his reporting authorities
were biased and threatened to sue them for defamation. Refuting
such claim, Review Committee observed noting the appellant’s
brilliance he had been awarded high grades to give him a chance
for correction, which he failed to utilize. Such observation shows
a fair and objective assessment by Review Committee after taking
into consideration both commendations and adverse conduct of
appellant.
22. Individual excellence may sometimes lead to superiority complex and
hinder commitment to discipline, decorum and collegiality. Keeping
in mind the essential requisite of collective leadership in highest
echelons of civil service, the Committee was justified in giving due
weightage to lack of adherence to discipline and collegiality.
23. Mr. Basant’s argument that no benchmark score was fixed as per
Rule 2 of IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 is of little consequence. Clause
7.2 of the Guidelines unequivocally states that no benchmark is to
be fixed. Be that as it may, failure to fix benchmark score cannot be
treated as a marker of arbitrariness or discrimination since appellant
was considered as a ‘special case’ though 90% of his ACRs were
not available.
24. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said the decision of the
Committee is either mala fide or so unreasonable that a man of
ordinary prudence would not have come to such a conclusion. It may
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1733

Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors.

also be relevant to bear in mind that Screening Committee decision
had not been assailed by appellant.
25. Much water has flown since then. In 2021 as well as 2022, appellant’s
case was again considered and rejected by the Screening Committee.
Thereafter, the High Court has again given opportunity to the appellant
to approach the authorities concerned for generation of 90% of the
ACRs and reconsideration of his case. Given this situation, no case
for interference is made out and the appeal is dismissed.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey