NEW DELHI: The Narendra Modi government’s 360-degree evaluation system for senior bureaucrats has got a boost, with the Delhi high court refusing to strike it down in a recent case.

The HC also dismissed in end-February a review plea moved by the officer urging it to reconsider the decision, saying “no grounds are made out for review”.

Introduced in 2015, the 360-degree appraisal system made vetting of eligible bureaucrats to highest echelons of office much more stringent. However, it has also drawn criticism from several quarters for being opaque and non-transparent, unlike the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).

While dealing with a plea, the HC backed the government’s new system, which is also known as Multi-Source Feedback Guidelines (MSF).

A bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Talwant Singh studied the MSF guidelines and minutes of each of the meetings of the Committee of Secretaries constituted for deciding empanelment of additional secretaries, before rejecting the plea of a senior IAS officer who challenged the MSF, which overlooked him for empanelment thrice, and sought a copy of his appraisal.

The HC agreed with the stand of the Centre through additional solicitor general Sanjay Jain and standing counsel Gaurang Kant , noting: “MSF Guidelines were not intended to be ‘issued’, i.e. placed in the public domain. They were to serve as internal guidelines for the Committee of Secretaries/ Empanelment Committee when it undertook the task of deciding to empanel Additional Secretaries.”

In his plea, the senior IAS officer had urged the HC to direct the Centre to consider his case for empanelment for the posts of additional secretary and later to secretary, government of India. He claimed the MSF norms were never issued or made public and attacked the decision as arbitrary.

The HC had earlier directed the central government to place before it in a sealed cover the MSF guidelines that went into consideration of the officer’s case on the last three occasions.

It found nothing amiss in the process saying MSF is meant to “aid the CoS/ EPC in carrying out their task, their use for arriving at a decision cannot be said to be illegal”.

It also noted that MSF involved the entire process by which the officer’s case was examined for empanelment as additional secretary on multiple occasions prior to and after May, 2016. The government also considered the recommendations of an Experts Panel as well as the Review Experts Panel, the HC ruled.

