Assessment Committee’s discretion to determine promotional fitness cannot be supplanted by mathematical averaging of performance scores.

The Respondent, a Scientist at CSIR, challenged the recommendation of the Assessment Committee dated 14.09.2016 and the O.M. dated 16.11.2017

He sought promotion to "Senior Scientist" effective from 19.09.2012, asserting that based on Rule 7.4.1 of the CSIR Rules 2001, his high Annual Performance Report (APR/PMS) scores (average 92.1%) entitled him to a residency relaxation and promotion

The Appellants contended that promotion involves a two-stage process: (1) screening via APR scores for eligibility, and (2) assessment by an Assessment Committee based on the "Work Report"

The Committee awarded the Respondent 82% on his Work Report, which fell below the 85% threshold

The CAT and High Court ruled in favor of the Respondent, holding that the final score should be the average of the PMS and Work Report marks

1. Whether Paragraph 3(b) of the Circular dated 01.06.2011 mandates the averaging of APR/PMS scores with Work Report marks to determine suitability for promotion.

2. Whether the Assessment Committee has the discretion to devise its own criteria for assessing merit in the absence of specific statutory instructions for weighting marks.

The Court applied the CSIR Scientists Recruitment Promotion Rules, 2001, specifically Rule 7.4 regarding eligibility screening based on ACR/APR scores and Rule 7.6 regarding the constitution and function of the Assessment Committee.

Para 3(b) of the Circular Letter dated 01.06.2011, which amended the assessment basis to include both PMS and Work Reports.

a fundamental canon of statutory construction: that words cannot be added to a statute unless there is a necessary implication or accidental omission

Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India and Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar

The Court found that Para 3(b) of the 2011 Circular merely lists the components for assessment (APR/PMS and Work Report) but does not prescribe a mathematical formula or "averaging" method

The Court held that CAT and the High Court erred by "adding words" to the provision to mandate a mean score

It reasoned that since the Assessment Committee consists of domain experts (under Rule 7.6.3), they must be granted latitude to exercise discretion in evaluating a scientist's work, especially since Work Reports vary in complexity

The Court emphasized that the two-stage process inherently considers APRs at the screening stage; requiring a further mandatory weighting at the second stage, without explicit rules, would improperly restrict expert evaluation

The Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and CAT, ruling that suitability for promotion is a matter for domain experts and cannot be substituted by judicial interpretation. The Original Application filed by the Respondent was dismissed, and the appeal by CSIR was allowed. No order as to costs