HC maintains new evaluation system for bureaucrats
NEW DELHI: The Narendra Modi The government's 360-degree evaluation system for high-level bureaucrats has received a boost, and the Delhi high court refused to eliminate it in a recent case.
The HC also dismissed at the end of February a request for review submitted by the officer urging her to reconsider the decision, saying that the review is not warranted.
Introduced in 2015, the 360-degree evaluation system made the verification of eligible bureaucrats at the highest levels of office much stricter. However, it has also received criticism from various sectors for being opaque and non-transparent, unlike the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR).
When dealing with a guilty plea, the HC supported the new government system, which is also known as Multi-Source Feedback Guidelines (SPS).
A Justice and Justice bank studied the guidelines and the MSF minutes of each of the meetings of the Committee of Secretaries constituted to decide on additional secretaries, before rejecting the appeal of a senior IAS officer who challenged MSF, who passed it overlooked three times, and sought a copy of his assessment.
The HC agreed with the Center's position through an additional general lawyer and a permanent lawyer, and noted: The MSF Guidelines were not intended to be issued, that is, placed in the public domain. They should serve as internal guidelines for the Secretaries Committee/Splicing Committee when they assumed the task of deciding to impale Additional Secretaries.
In his plea, the senior IAS officer had urged the HC to order the Center to consider its case of splicing for the positions of additional secretary and later the secretary of the government of India. He stated that the SPS rules were never published or published and attacked the decision as arbitrary.
Previously, the HC had ordered the central government to put before it on a sealed cover the MSF guidelines that took into account the case of the officer on the last three occasions.
He found nothing wrong in the process by saying that MSF is intended to help the CoS/EPC carry out its task, its use to reach a decision cannot be said to be illegal.
He also noted that MSF involved the entire process through which the official's case was examined for inclusion as an additional secretary on multiple occasions before and after May 2016. The government also considered the recommendations of an Expert Panel, as well as the Panel of Review Experts, the HC ruled.