TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered for empanelment for promotion to the rank of Major General on 24.04.2015. The apprehension of the Appellant that he was compared with the merit of the earlier batch is unfounded. The earlier policy followed for promotion to higher ranks in the Army from 1987 was revised in the year 2008 to introduce a quantification system to be followed by the Selection Boards. The policy governing promotions to higher ranks in the Army was issued on 04.01.2011 in supersession of the earlier policy of the quantification system. Primacy is given to the CRs as is clearly mentioned in the policy. There is nothing mentioned in the policy that an officer can be ignored for empanelment only on the basis of the value judgment in spite of his securing high marks on the basis of the other criteria - In the instant case, the Appellant was the only eligible Brigadier of his batch for empanelment to the rank of Major General with a meritorious record of service. He could not have been deprived of his empanelment only on the basis of value judgment of the Selection Board. There is no presumption that a decision taken by persons occupying high posts is valid. All power vested in the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to review their decision with regard to non-empanelment of the applicant for the said promotion and to empanel him for the promotion in accordance with the extant policy of batch wise consideration; (c) Direction requiring the Respondents to ignore and not to act upon, while so reviewing the applicant's case, any adverse/advisory remarks or any non-recommendation for promotion endorsed in any of his CRs, which have remained uncommunicated to him and forming ground to deny him the promotion; (e) Setting aside of any adverse/advisory remarks or any non-recommendation for promotion endorsed in any of his CRs, which have remained uncommunicated to the applicant; (f) Setting aside of the order No. A/46001/584/MS (X) dated 28th November, 2014 retiring the applicant from service w.e.f. 30.09.2015 (A/N); (g) Direction requiring the Respondents not to hold the Number 1 Selection Board in respect of Intelligence Corps 1982 Batch tentatively scheduled to be held in September, 2015. 3. It was contended on his behalf before the Tribunal that the Appellant has an excellent record of service. Being the only eligible candidate for empanelment for promotion to the rank of Major G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Senior Counsel and Indra Sen Singh, advocate for the Appellants and Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents. 8. It was urged on behalf of the Appellant that his non-empanelment to the rank of Major General is arbitrary and violative of the instructions issued in terms of the promotion policy of the Respondents and hence contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Dave submitted that the Appellant is entitled for empanelment to the rank of Major General in accordance with the promotion policy. He took us through the promotion policy of the Respondents from 1987 onwards to contend that the Respondents have breached the procedure prescribed in the promotion policy. The action of the Respondents in not complying with the policy while considering the Appellant for empanelment is arbitrary and vitiated by malice in law. 9. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Respondents that the empanelment of the Appellant to the rank of Major General was considered by the First Board and later by a Review Board before he attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2015 after following the procedure prescribed in the instructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved earlier to the next higher rank whilst in low medical classification and to ensure selection through objectivity, impartiality and in the best interest of the service in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Chief of the Army Staff. According to the guidelines of assessment in the above Army instructions, selection is to be based on the overall profile of the officers with special stress on the performance in criteria command appointment. Due consideration should be given to officers who show consistency in overall performance and they are given preference over late starters. Another criteria taken into account is consistent recommendations for promotion to the next rank and credit is to be given to those officers who have earned positive recommendations for promotion in their very first report in command. According to the guidelines of assessment the officer should have potential for being employed or being rotated in staff, instructional or ERE appointments. Character qualities, disciplinary background and decorations form an important input to the overall profile of the officer and due consideration should be given while assessing border line cases. There is a req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allotted by following the parameters of performance, potential disciplinary awards/administrative actions, recommendations for promotion and degree of difficulty. 13. The revised policy for conduct of the Selection Boards of quantification system was issued on 04.01.2011. Primacy of the CRs vis-e-vis other criteria like performance of courses, honours and awards has been maintained. All CRs in reckonable profile were directed to be quantified. Look-two-down principle of taking into consideration of CRs earned in the present rank and previous rank, will continue for No. 3 Selection Board, No. 2 Selection Board and No. 1 Selection Board as before. 14. There was also a change in allocation marks. Apart from 2 marks allotted for the courses and 2 for honours and awards (gallantry), 19 marks were allotted for performance as Colonel, 8 for staff/Instr./others (Cols), 46 for Brigadier, 18 for Staff/Instr/others (Brigadier). The above allocation of marks would be included in the quantifiable total of 95, with 5 marks being allotted to value judgment. The guidelines issued for allotment of 5 marks earmarked for value judgment are on the basis of performance, potential, special a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the rank of Brigadier in Intelligence Corps belonging to the 1981 batch who was considered for empanelment to the rank of Major General. Responding to a query, Mr. Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Appellant was found not fit for promotion on a fair evaluation of his suitability and employability in rank of Major General. Though, only 5 marks have been earmarked for value judgment by the Selection Board, Mr. Balasubramanian submitted that there is nothing wrong in the decision of the Selection Board in not recommending the Appellant for empanelment to the rank of Major General after examining the complete reckonable profile of the officer. He justified the recommendation of the Selection Board by arguing that the Appellant was correctly refused empanelment on the ground that he lacked the requisite potential for promotion. 18. The earlier policy followed for promotion to higher ranks in the Army from 1987 was revised in the year 2008 to introduce a quantification system to be followed by the Selection Boards. The policy governing promotions to higher ranks in the Army was issued on 04.01.2011 in supersession of the earlier policy of the quantification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of public servants in Government service for adjudicating the dispute in this case. The only point that is considered by us is regarding the non-empanelment of the Appellant being in accordance with the promotion policy of the Respondent. The non-empanelment of the Appellant for promotion as Major General is contrary to the promotion policy. He is entitled for reconsideration for empanelment by a Review Selection Board strictly in accordance with the promotion policy by keeping in mind the observations in this judgment. The Respondents are directed to complete this exercise within a period of six months from today. 22. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the Appeal is allowed. Civil Appeal No. 5629 of 2017 23. The Appellant was not empanelled for promotion to the rank of Major General in the year 2015, aggrieved by which he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the Appellant. The facts of this Appeal are similar to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 5751 of 2017. The Appellant was the only eligible Brigadier to be considered for promotion for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
