Decision of high-powered assessment committee cannot be challenged purely on subjective dissatisfaction with awarded interview marks.

The applicant, an Executive Engineer (Electrical) at CSIO, sought merit promotion from Grade III(4) to III(5) under the "Merit And Normal Assessment Scheme (MANAS)" after acquiring a B-Tech degree in 2008.

Under Clause 2.3.4 of MANAS, employees acquiring higher qualifications could be assessed two years earlier than the normal period.

In his first assessment on 23.09.2010, the applicant was declared "unfit" after receiving only 9 out of 50 marks in the interview, despite high ACR scores.

He was later approved for promotion in a second chance w.e.f. 19.12.2009.

However, the respondents issued an impugned order on 07.05.2014 cancelling this promotion and initiating recovery of pay.

The matter was remanded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for fresh adjudication on the validity of the initial 2010 assessment.

1. Whether the applicant was validly declared unfit in the assessment dated 23.09.2010, particularly regarding the legality of the Assessment Committee's constitution.

2. Whether the cancellation of the applicant's promotion w.e.f. 19.12.2009 via the impugned order dated 07.05.2014 was legally sustainable.

The Tribunal applied the provisions of the "Merit And Normal Assessment Scheme (MANAS)," specifically Clause 2.3.4 regarding accelerated assessment for higher qualifications.

Clause 4.3 regarding the quorum and composition of Assessment Committees, which requires a Chairman, Director/DG nominee, and at least one expert in the relevant area.

The court also adhered to the principle of judicial restraint in administrative expert assessments, holding that subjective evaluations by high-powered committees remain valid unless proven to be procedurally flawed or malafide.

The Tribunal scrutinized the composition of the 2010 Assessment Committee and found that it complied with MANAS guidelines. Although the applicant challenged the expertise of Shri S.K. Mittal (Mechanical/AC background), the record showed that three other members specialized in the Electrical trade were present, satisfying the quorum and expertise requirements.

Regarding the applicant’s claim of "whimsical" marking (9/50 marks), the Tribunal noted that under MANAS, interview assessments are inherently subjective. It observed that the applicant failed to provide cogent evidence of procedural irregularity or malafide intent to override the committee's decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted the applicant's contradictory stance: he challenged the committee's competence for the 2010 failure but accepted the 2011 assessment result from a committee involving the same expert members.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, upholding the impugned order and denying the relief for backdated promotion and refund of recoveries.