“Individual Excellence May Lead to Superiority Complex”: Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Promotion to Kerala IAS Officer Raju Narayana Swamy
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of a civil appeal by a senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer challenging his non-inclusion in the panel for promotion to the Chief Secretary grade. The matter was adjudicated by a Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Screening and Review Committees, and recorded that no case for interference had been made out.
The Court stated that although the officer was considered as a "special case" due to non-availability of 90% of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), he was found not fit for promotion to the apex scale, citing consistent unsatisfactory performance, disciplinary lapses, and interpersonal conduct issues.
The appellant, an IAS officer of the 1991 batch from the Kerala cadre, was promoted to the grade of Principal Secretary effective from 01.06.2016. The subsequent elevation to the Chief Secretary grade is governed by Clause VI of the 'Principles regarding Promotion of Members of IAS' appended to Rule 3(1) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016. According to these rules, officers who have completed 30 years of service fall within the zone of consideration for promotion.
The selection is conducted by a Screening Committee comprising the Chief Secretary, an officer serving in the promotional grade in the State, and an officer of the same grade serving in the Central Government. As per the guidelines, a minimum of 90% of up-to-date ACRs must be available before proposals for consideration can be submitted to the Committee.
Despite the appellant lacking 90% of his ACRs, the Screening Committee assessed his case as a special consideration based on the available reports. The Committee examined 30 years of service records and found that five years of the appellant's ACRs were missing. It recorded:
"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... Hence, the Committee has decided not to recommend his name."
Subsequently, the appellant filed a representation under Clause 23 of the Guidelines, which permits review if material facts were overlooked or if procedural errors occurred. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. 110/2021, directed the constitution of a Review Committee.
The Review Committee, which included the then Chief Secretary, after giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard, issued a reasoned order dated 27.04.2021. It noted at least five instances of poor ratings concerning leadership and interpersonal skills. It also recorded absence from critical meetings and an unauthorised absence from duty for almost a year (19.03.2019 to 17.03.2020), which had not been regularised. These findings were based on the appellant's ACRs and other service records.
"The officer has been observed to be a serial litigant... and had threatened defamation cases against ACR/PAR reporting authorities," the Review Committee stated. The Committee concluded that the adverse service record justified non-inclusion in the promotion panel.
The appellant challenged the Review Committee's decision before the CAT (O.A. 180/199/2021), which was dismissed. His subsequent writ before the High Court also failed. The High Court found that due to the non-availability of 90% ACRs and the appellant's inability to prove submission of self-appraisals, the Screening Committee was handicapped. However, it allowed the appellant to request the preparation of missing ACRs and reapplication for promotion consideration.
The Supreme Court addressed the appellant's contentions regarding the Review Committee's reliance on ACRs prior to his promotion in 2016, which he claimed were 'washed off.' The Court examined precedent including Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and stated:
"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... it may lend assurance to conclusion of the Committee..."
Regarding the use of findings from Fact-Finding Reports and previous CAT proceedings, the Court noted: "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."
The Bench also refuted the argument that the Committee supplied new reasons for denial. It observed: "The rationale expressed by Screening Committee was merely amplified by the Review Committee in light of the submissions and material placed by appellant."
Further, the Court stated: "Individual excellence may sometimes lead to superiority complex and hinder commitment to discipline, decorum and collegiality... the Committee was justified in giving due weightage to lack of adherence to discipline and collegiality."
On the argument of non-fixation of benchmark score, the Court cited Clause 7.2 of the Guidelines: "There will be no benchmark for assessing suitability of officers for promotions."
The Bench concluded: "No case for interference is made out and the appeal is dismissed."
The Supreme Court upheld the Review Committee’s decision and declined to interfere. It recorded: "Much water has flown since then... appellant’s case was again considered and rejected in 2021 and 2022... no case for interference is made out and the appeal is dismissed."
The Bench endorsed the High Court’s liberty to the appellant to seek completion of 90% ACRs and reapply, observing this route remains open should he choose to pursue it.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. R. Basant, Senior Advocate; Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R., Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Krishna L. R., Advocate; Mr. Raunak Arora, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Senior Advocate; Ms. Sarvshree, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Soumya Sandilaya, Advocate
Case Title: Raju Narayana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 563
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3215 of 2025
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
[Read/Download order]
