The Supreme Court has held that courts cannot introduce an averaging formula into the CSIR Scientists Recruitment and Promotion Rules when the rules themselves do not provide for one. Allowing the appeals filed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Court ruled that the assessment of a scientist's suitability for promotion is to be made by the expert Assessment Committee in accordance with the applicable rules and set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Karnataka High Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after a CSIR scientist challenged the decision denying him promotion to the post of Senior Scientist from the date he claimed to have become eligible. He argued that his Annual Performance Reports (APR)/Performance Mapping Scheme (PMS) scores consistently exceeded 90%, while the Assessment Committee awarded him 82% on his Work Report.
According to the scientist, the average of the APR/PMS scores and the Work Report score would cross the required 85% threshold, making him eligible for promotion from an earlier date.
The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted this interpretation and directed that he be granted promotion. The Karnataka High Court later modified the relief by directing the employer to conduct a review Departmental Promotion Committee instead of granting promotion directly. CSIR challenged both orders before the Supreme Court.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court Examines the Promotion Rules
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan closely examined the CSIR Scientists Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2001, along with the amendment introduced through the Circular dated June 1, 2011.
The Court noted that the promotion process involves two distinct stages. First, an Internal Screening Committee evaluates whether a scientist satisfies the eligibility criteria based on APR/PMS scores. Those who qualify are then assessed by an expert Assessment Committee, which examines the scientist's work and determines whether the candidate is "fit for promotion."
The judges observed that the rules require the Assessment Committee to consider both the APR/PMS records and the Work Report, but nowhere do they mandate averaging the numerical scores of the two.
Court's Observations
Rejecting the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal and the High Court, the Bench observed:
"The view taken by CAT and the High Court... amounts to adding words to a provision."
The Court explained that the promotion rules merely require consideration of the APR/PMS and the Work Report. They do not prescribe any mathematical formula or averaging process for determining suitability.
The Bench further observed:
"Suitability for promotion must be left to be determined by the domain experts."
According to the Court, the Assessment Committee is made up of domain experts who are entrusted with evaluating the suitability of candidates for promotion. Since the rules do not prescribe any formula for awarding or averaging marks at the assessment stage, the Court held that it is not open to courts to read such a requirement into the rules.
The Bench also noted that there were no allegations of mala fide against any member of the Assessment Committee. It further recorded that the respondent was found suitable for promotion in a subsequent assessment, observing that this also formed part of the overall factual background while deciding the appeals.
Supreme Court's Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that both the CAT and the Karnataka High Court had misconstrued the CSIR promotion rules by directing that APR/PMS marks and Work Report marks be averaged to determine promotion eligibility.
The Court ruled that such a method finds no support in the applicable rules and that assessment of suitability should remain within the discretion of the expert Assessment Committee.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the original application filed before the Tribunal.
No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details
Case Title: The Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Ors. v. Anil Earnest
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 8790–8791 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10821–10822 of 2024)
Judge: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
Decision Date: July 10, 2026
