Assignment II: Case Comment on

State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr

Subject: Administrative Law

Submitted to: Professor. Sunishth Goyal

Submitted by:
Aryan Kapoor
B.A., LL.B. III Year
VI Semester
Roll no. - 2022-5LLB-20

National Academy of Legal Studies and Research University of

Law
Hyderabad

1
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................3
Facts of the Case..............................................................................4
Arguments of the Applicant (State of Haryana)...................................................5
Arguments of the Respondents (Ashok Khemka)..................................................6
Judgment and Reasoning of the Supreme Court............................................7
Application of Administrative Law Theories.................................................8
Conclusion.................................................................................. 10

2
 Introduction

The case of State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr1 shows a number of administrative
theories at play dealing most particularly in the domain of judicial review of administrative
discretion. At its core, the case questions the extent to which courts should interfere in
executive decision-making concerning civil servants' performance appraisals. The dispute
arose from the downgrading of an IAS officer’s annual performance evaluation by the
Accepting Authority the Chief Minister of Haryana after two lower authorities had assessed
the officer’s performance differently. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had overturned the
Accepting Authority’s decision, restoring the higher grade assigned by the Reviewing
Authority, thereby raising significant questions about the scope of judicial oversight in
executive assessments. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision, reinforcing the
idea that administrative discretion should be respected unless it is arbitrary, mala fide, or ultra
vires.

This case is particularly relevant in the field of administrative law as it highlights competing
principles of procedural fairness, judicial restraint, and executive autonomy. On the one hand,
the respondent, IAS officer Ashok Khemka, contended that his downgrade was unjustified,
arbitrary, and in violation of procedural norms. On the other hand, the State of Haryana
argued that the Chief Minister, as the highest executive authority in the state, had complete
discretion in assessing an officer’s performance and ensuring consistency across appraisals.
The Supreme Court’s ruling ultimately emphasized that while procedural guidelines are
important, substantive executive decisions should not be easily overturned unless there is
clear injustice or procedural violation that materially affects the officer.

This case comment critically examines the case by analyzing the facts, the arguments
presented by both sides, the judgment, the judicial reasoning, and the broader implications in
administrative law. It further applies administrative law theories, particularly the red light and
green light theories, to assess the significance of the decision in shaping the role of courts in
administrative matters.

1
State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr, [2024] 3 S.C.R. 393.

3
 Facts of the Case

The dispute originated from the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) of 2016-17 for Ashok
Khemka, an IAS officer from the 1991 batch, who was serving as Principal Secretary in the
Government of Haryana. The appraisal process in the All India Services (Performance
Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (PAR Rules) involves three levels of evaluation:

 The Reporting Authority, who first assesses the officer’s performance (in this case, the
Chief Secretary of Haryana).

 The Reviewing Authority, who evaluates the officer after the Reporting Authority (in
this case, the Health Minister of Haryana).

 The Accepting Authority, the final decision-maker on the appraisal (in this case, the
Chief Minister of Haryana).2

Khemka submitted his self-appraisal on June 7, 2017. The Reporting Authority awarded him
a grade of 8.22, while the Reviewing Authority revised this score upwards to 9.92,
considering his performance exceptional. However, the Accepting Authority overruled the
Reviewing Authority and downgraded Khemka’s score to 9, which still fell within the
“Outstanding” category but was a reduction from the Reviewing Authority’s assessment.3

Khemka, dissatisfied with this revision, filed a representation on January 12, 2018,
under Rule 9(2) of the PAR Rules, requesting that his original score of 9.92 be reinstated.
Despite procedural guidelines requiring timely action, his representation remained
unresolved. As a result, Khemka approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),
challenging the Accepting Authority’s decision. The CAT dismissed his application, ruling
that the Accepting Authority had acted within the deadline of December 31, 2017, as
mandated under Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules.4

Unconvinced by this decision, Khemka filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, which ruled in his favor. The High Court concluded that the Accepting Authority had
acted arbitrarily and failed to consider the practical challenges and integrity of the officer.

2
Supra note 1, para 4.
3
Supra note 1, para 7.
4
Supra note 1, para 8.

4
It set aside the Accepting Authority’s remarks and reinstated the Reviewing Authority’s score
of 9.92.5

The State of Haryana appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High
Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering in an executive decision. The Supreme
Court ultimately overturned the High Court’s ruling, reinstating the Accepting Authority’s
revised score of 9.

Arguments of the Applicant (State of Haryana)

The State of Haryana defended the Accepting Authority’s decision by emphasizing executive
discretion in performance evaluations. The applicant’s arguments were centered
on procedural compliance, administrative consistency, and judicial non-interference in
executive functions.

The State argued that the Accepting Authority had acted within the legally prescribed
timeline, as Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules explicitly allows performance appraisals to be
finalized by December 31 of the following year. Since the Chief Minister had downgraded
Khemka’s rating within this timeframe, his actions could not be deemed unlawful.
Furthermore, the Reviewing Authority’s assessment was only advisory, and the Accepting
Authority had the final say in the grading process.6

The applicant further argued that Khemka had not suffered any material harm because a score
of 9 still qualified as “Outstanding” and would not impede his future promotions or
empanelment prospects. The State also contended that the judiciary should not intervene in
administrative decisions, particularly in cases where the executive possesses subject-matter
expertise. The High Court’s intervention, according to the applicant, undermined the principle
of separation of powers and exceeded the court’s role under judicial review.

Arguments of the Respondents (Ashok Khemka)

Khemka’s primary argument was that the Accepting Authority’s actions violated procedural
fairness and were arbitrary. He contended that the deadlines prescribed in the Schedule of the
PAR Rules were mandatory, and since the Accepting Authority had revised the appraisal
outside the ideal timeframe, his decision should be rendered invalid. Khemka further argued
that the Accepting Authority failed to provide specific reasoning for downgrading his score,
which amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power.

5
Id.
6
Supra note 1, para 10.

5
The respondent also claimed that even a minor reduction in performance ratings could affect
career progression, particularly for high-ranking civil servants. He cited Dev Dutt v. Union of
India (2008)7, where the Supreme Court held that all performance evaluations that impact an
officer’s future should be transparently communicated and justified.

7
Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008), (2008) 8 SCC 725

6
 Judgment and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court overturned the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, ruling in favor
of the State of Haryana and reinstating the Accepting Authority’s revised score of 9. The
Court reasoned that the Accepting Authority had complied with Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules,
which allows for performance appraisals to be finalized by December 31.

The Supreme Court also emphasized judicial restraint in administrative matters, citing cases
like Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. (2019) 8, which discouraged
courts from interfering in executive functions unless there was clear mala fide intent. The
Court found that since 9 was still an “Outstanding” rating, Khemka had not suffered tangible
harm.

The Court, however, directed the Accepting Authority to resolve Khemka’s pending
representation within 60 days, recognizing that administrative inaction could lead to
procedural unfairness.

8
Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. (2019), (2019) 14 SCC 8.

7
 Application of Administrative Law Theories

The red light theory, which advocates for strict judicial oversight of executive power9, was
reflected in the High Court’s ruling we see the court interfering with the workings of the
executive.10 By reversing the decision and following a more positivist understanding of the
rule of law. They went beyond the rules and attempted to make inferences the High court in a
way took a very sceptical view of the promotion assessment one could say that they
attempted to alter the decision of the authority without any kind of basis simply because there
was a slightly different conclusion that was reached as they found such a conclusion to be
arbitrary. The Sc talked about how the High court did not appreciate the fact that the report
was inspected by 6 officials they did not give weight to expertise that the committee had in
such evaluations. The court held this to be the settled position of the law.11

It was in response to this The green light theory was employed by the supreme court, which
promoted minimal judicial interference and deference to administrative discretion, was
applied by the Supreme Court in its judgment.12 The supreme court laid down very specific
and normative grounds for judging the validity of the assessment simply saw whether the
decision of the authority was malafide or was it ultra vires limiting itself to such grounds is
promoting the green light theory by ensuring that the judicial intervention to a minimum. The
court only saw whether the assessment was conducted in time that was prescribed and there
was no malafide element limiting their examination to the same. 13 We see that the court has
limited its rule to only arbitrary action and welcomed the administrative state. The Court
reinforced executive autonomy in performance evaluations while ensuring that procedural
rights were not entirely ignored.

In a sense the ruling of the supreme court is also one that upholds the doctrine of delegated
legislation,14 the promotion aspect and the crietria and rules for the same have been delegated
to the executive they have the power to decide that what criteria is employed, what standard
is used and which standard has to be satisfied for the promotion, it is to be noted that
although this is delegated to the executive that does not mean that they cannot be questioned
the court can question the decisions of the executive in this regard if they feel it is arbitrary
9
Law and administration, Carrol Harlow, Pg 6.
10
Supra 1 para 6.
11
State of Jharkhand v. Linde India Ltd., (2022) 107 GSTR 381.
12
Law and administration, Carrol Harlow, Pg 18.
13
Supra note 1, Para 18.
14
Principles of administration law, MP Jain, Pg 54.

8
the laws have been exercised in an improper manner the courts can still intervene and keep
check on this power,15 in the present case this wasn’t the circumstance since the rating wasn’t
dropped by much and the person was still in the outstanding bracket and thus the court did
not find that the executive exercised these laws in an arbitrary manner.

The judgment also reaffirmed the separation of powers doctrine, emphasizing that courts
should not interfere in administrative matters unless there is a clear violation of law or
constitutional rights. The Court balanced procedural fairness and executive discretion by
directing a time-bound resolution of Khemka’s representation. In a way the court has
separated its task and the executives task by only limiting its role to see whether a
constitutional anomaly has taken place in the present case the court did not find the action
arbitrary, it is imperative to note that the court is not the judge of whether Mr Khemka will
get a promotion that is the decision of the executive the courts rule in this review is to only
see whether the legislative took this decision fairly not whether this decision was right.

Conclusion

15
Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India (2006), [2006] Supp. (8) S.C.R. 535.

9
The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka upholds the principle of
judicial non-interference in executive decision-making while ensuring basic procedural
safeguards. It highlights the importance of respecting executive expertise in assessing
bureaucrats’ performance while acknowledging the need for procedural fairness. The case
serves as a precedent for limiting judicial intervention in civil service evaluations, reinforcing
the principle that courts should not substitute their opinions for those of the executive unless
clear illegality or irrationality is evident.

10