Performance Assessment Rules Requiring 'Consideration' Of Reports Don't Mandate Averaging Of Scores; Courts Can't Add Words To Rules: Supreme Court

"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." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that service rules requiring an Assessment Committee to consider both annual performance reports and work reports for promotion do not imply a mandate to average those scores.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan observed that when a rule is silent on the weightage to be assigned to different components of an assessment, the matter must be left to the discretion of the domain experts constituting the Assessment Committee. The Court emphasized that judicial interpretation cannot be used to read words into a statute or rule that were never intended by the legislature or the rule-making authority.

The respondent, a scientist at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), challenged the denial of his promotion to the post of Senior Scientist effective from 2012. While he met the initial screening threshold based on his Annual Performance Reports (APRs), the Assessment Committee awarded him 82% on his ‘Work Report,’ which was below the 85% threshold required for recommendation. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Karnataka High Court ruled in his favor, holding that the marks from his APRs (92.1%) and Work Report (82%) should have been averaged, which would have put him above the threshold.

The primary question before the court was whether Paragraph 3(b) of the CSIR Circular dated June 1, 2011, which mandates that assessment be "based on" APR/PMS and the Work Report, requires the Assessment Committee to calculate a mathematical average of these scores. The court was also called upon to determine if the Assessment Committee possesses the inherent discretion to devise its own method for objective assessment in the absence of specific statutory guidelines on weightage.

Literal Rule Of Statutory Interpretation Reaffirmed

The Court began by addressing the fundamental principles of statutory interpretation, noting that courts must adhere to the plain language of the law. The bench observed that the word “and” in the rule suggests that there must be a consideration of both the APR/PMS and the Work Report, but it does not prescribe a formula for averaging the two.

The bench noted that it is a settled position in law that while construing a provision, it is not permissible to read words that are not present. Referring to the exceptions to this rule, the Court stated that words may only be read into a provision if they appear to have been accidentally omitted or if their absence deprives existing words of all meaning, neither of which applied in this case.

“It is settled position in law that normally while construing a provision of a statute, it is not permissible to read words which are not there in the provision.”

Assessment Committee Functions As A Body Of Domain Experts

The Supreme Court highlighted that the Assessment Committee is a high-profile body consisting of experts in the relevant scientific fields. The Court observed that the 2001 Rules provide sufficient guidance by requiring the committee to consider both sets of reports, and the specific weightage to be assigned to each is a matter of professional judgment.

The bench remarked that for a scientist, the ‘Work Report’ is of utmost importance as it reflects the actual research and output during the residency period. The Court noted that a scientist engaged in complex research might have different performance metrics compared to one in a less complex field, making a rigid averaging formula unsuitable for such professional assessments.

Court Rejects The Charge Of Arbitrariness Under Article 14

The respondent had argued that unless an averaging method was followed, the rules would be vulnerable to the vice of arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the requirement to consider both reports provides sufficient guidance to the committee.

The Court held that the absence of a specific rule for averaging does not render the process unguided. It noted that the two-stage process—initial screening based on APRs followed by a secondary assessment of the Work Report—is a built-in safeguard that ensures only eligible candidates reach the final evaluation stage.

“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.”

Judicial Restraint In Service Matters And Expert Evaluations

The Court emphasized that the judiciary should be slow to interfere with the evaluation methods adopted by expert committees in academic or scientific fields. The bench observed that the High Court and CAT erred by substituting their own interpretation of the promotion criteria for that of the employer and the expert body.

By mandating a mathematical average, the lower forums had effectively added a procedural requirement that did not exist in the CSIR Scientists Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2001. The Supreme Court clarified that such an approach exceeds the remit of judicial review in service jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court concluded that the interpretation adopted by the High Court and CAT was unsustainable as it was not borne out by the text of the rules. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the previous orders, and dismissed the original application filed by the respondent. The bench reiterated that in the absence of mala fides, the discretion of an expert assessment committee remains final.

Date of Decision: July 10, 2026