SC rules ICAR staff are not civil servants under Article 311; upholds tenure curtailment and reversion

News Citation : 2026 LN (SC) 427

April 28, 2026 : The Supreme Court of India has clarified that employees of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) are not entitled to constitutional protection under Article 311, holding that such safeguards apply only to persons holding civil posts under the Union or the State.

The ruling came in Sadachari Singh Tomar v. Union of India & Ors. (2026 INSC 427), where a Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed appeals challenging the curtailment of an ICAR officer’s tenure and his reversion to a lower post.

The appellant had argued that the curtailment of his tenure amounted to a reduction in rank without complying with Article 311(2), which requires a formal inquiry before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a civil servant. The Court rejected this submission, observing that ICAR is an autonomous society functioning under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Ministry of Agriculture, and its employees are governed by its own rules and bye-laws. As such, they do not hold civil posts and cannot invoke Article 311.

On the facts of the case, the Court noted that the appellant had been appointed to the post of Assistant Director General (Agricultural Research Information System) for a tenure of five years or until further orders, whichever was earlier. The terms of appointment expressly allowed the competent authority to curtail the tenure. Relying on this condition, and on adverse Annual Assessment Reports, the authority had curtailed his tenure and reverted him to his earlier position.

The Court held that the appellant had no enforceable right to continue for the full tenure. It agreed with the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the curtailment was within administrative discretion and did not violate any statutory or contractual provision.

Reiterating settled principles of administrative law, the Bench emphasised that judicial review in service matters is limited to examining the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. Unless the action is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to statutory rules, courts will not interfere.

The Court also addressed the argument that the order was stigmatic because it referred to the appellant’s performance as “unsatisfactory” and “below average.” It held that such expressions do not amount to stigma and merely reflect an assessment of suitability, which does not require a disciplinary inquiry.

Rejecting allegations of mala fides, the Court observed that claims of colourable exercise of power must be supported by clear and specific material and cannot be inferred from surrounding circumstances alone. It further held that a separate inquiry into alleged misconduct did not prevent the authority from acting on performance assessments to curtail tenure.

Finding no illegality in the impugned action, the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the High Court and dismissed the appeals.