india

Updated: Jul 16, 2019 09:35 IST

The Bharatiya janata Party (BJP) government in Haryana has challenged the order of the Punjab and Haryana high court setting aside the remarks and grading made by chief minister ML Khattar in the performance appraisal report (PAR) of IAS officer, Ashok Khemka.

A three member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice, Ranjan Gogoi issued a notice to the IAS officer on July 12 to file a response.

Khattar, as the accepting authority of the IAS officer’s appraisal report, had reduced his score to 9 from 9.92 given by science and technology minister Anil Vij as the reviewing authority. The HC on March 18 ordered that the remarks recorded and grading done by the CM were liable to be expunged. The court also said the grading of 9.92 given by the minister as the reviewing authority be restored.

In its special leave petition (SLP) filed before the apex court, the state government contended that the accepting authority (Khattar) has very fairly and by indicating valid reasons, reduced Khemka’s PAR score from 9.92 given by the reviewing authority (Vij) to 9, which is also an increase in grading of 8.22 given by the reporting authority ( the chief secretary).

While grading him, Vij had remarked that Khemka is well-known for effective professional integrity under very difficult circumstances. Despite being in a relatively unimportant post, Khemka has shown excellent achievements under severe constraints, he wrote.

The chief minister in his remarks, however, said that Vij had differed with the chief secretary but not given any reason for the same, and Vij’s report as reviewing authority was slightly exaggerated.

The state government in its petition before the apex court has also contended that the high court did not have the jurisdiction to quash the reasoned assessment and score awarded by the accepting authority of IAS officers.

The SLP further said that whenever the PAR score is between 8 and 10, it is considered as nine for the purpose of empanelment or promotion without adversely affecting the chances of the officer. “Therefore, the HC erroneously interfered in grading given by the accepting authority which is based on reason,’’ the petition reads.