Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The appellant Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4669 of 1999 directing that case of the petitioner be reconsidered for his promotion from the rank of Lt. Colonel to Acting Colonel/Colonel after ignoring the A.C.Rs. of the years 1990-91 and 1992-93 and a further direction that the No. 3 Selection Board shall be constituted and convened to consider petitioner's case for promotion, was come to this Court inter alia submitting that the directions issued by the learned single Judge are not in accordance with law and tantamounts to interference into the selection process of the Armed Disciplined Forces.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner joined the Armed Forces as Second Lieutenant in the Bihar Regiment on 18-3-1978. He earned awards/rewards and due promotions in time and in November, 1989 he was given charge as Commanding Officer when he was a Major which marked the start of reckonable service for promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel and Colonel.

3. Undisputedly the promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel and Colonel are by selection on merit. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Lt. Colonel by No. 4 Selection Board on 20-3-1995. The No. 3 Selection Board considered the selections in December, 1996 for the 1978 Batch Officers to consider promotions to the rank of Acting Colonel/Colonel. The petitioner was not selected in December, 1996 in first review in December, 1997 or in second review in December, 1998 and it was further observed that as on three occasions the petitioner has not been found fit for promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel/Colonel, his case would not be considered in future. The petitioner being aggrieved by the result of the considerations and communications has come to this Court inter alia submitting that the result of No. 3 Selection Board, proceedings held during December, 1996, December, 1997 and in December, 1998 affecting the petitioner adversely, be quashed. In the writ application he also submitted that the A.C.Rs. for the period between June, 1990 to May, 1991 and June, 1992 to May, 1993 be directed to be ignored from consideration as the same were invalid and were not correctly recorded.

5. The writ petitioner had submitted and the facts have not been denied by the present appellants that other A.C.Rs. except for these two years show that the petitioner had been given box grading by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and by the Reviewing Officer (R.O.). According to him for the period between 1-6-1990 to 31-5-1991 in which the box grading by the I.O. and the R.O. had been reduced to 7 and the other A.C.Rs. of intervening period i.e., 1-6-1992 to 31-5-1993 in which the box grading by the R.O. was reduced to 7 did not correctly reflect the career profile of the petitioner and as the entries were not communicated to the petitioner with an advised for improvement, as such A.C.Rs. were not in accordance with norms and guidelines laid down for recording of A.C.Rs. The petitioner also contended that if the said A.C. Rs. were taken for consideration for his promotion to the rank of Lt, Colonel by the No. 4 Selection Board and the said A.C.Rs. did not hamper or made any impediment in his promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel then the same could not be considered adversely while considering his case of promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel/Colonel.

17. It is not in dispute before us that promotion to the rank of Lt, Colonel is given after selection by No. 4 Selection Board. The said two A.C.Rs. were taken into consideration by the No. 4 Selection Board and the No. 4 Selection Board did not find the said entries to be adverse or causing any impediment in promotion of the petitioner from the rank of Major to the rank of Lt. Colonel. True it is that for promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel/Colonel, the past records are to be seen but at this point of time it cannot be said that an entry which did not adversely affect the candidate earlier in securing promotion, would be considered to be an adverse entry. Nothing has been brought on record to show to us that for promotion to the rank of Colonel any additional gallantry or any additional service records are required. It would be correct to say that the best are to be promoted but persons who are not bad or do not have anything adverse cannot be rejected. In the present matter, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was unjustified in observing that the entries for the years 1990-91 and 1992-93 were technically incorrect. However, the learned single Judge was absolutely right in observing that if the entries were not treated to be adverse by one Selection Board then unless something further is brought on the record or applicability of different standards are shown, the very same entries would not become adverse. We are of the considered opinion that the true effect of these two entries have not been taken into consideration. If these two entries are to be taken to be bad or adverse or affecting the petitioner's right to further promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel/Colonel then something was required to be brought on the record to show that what is considered good for promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel may not be considered good for promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel/Colonel.