Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1354 - SC - Indian LawsDoctrine of legitimate expectation - Seeking direction to the Appellant-Union of India to consider the Respondents for promotion to the rank of Colonel by creating supernumerary posts with effect from the date the said Respondents were eligible for such promotion - HELD THAT:- Coming to the case in hand, the plea of legitimate expectation does not appear to be of any assistance to the Respondents for two precise reasons. Firstly, there is no real basis for the Respondents to argue that the Government of India had either by representation or by any sustained course of conduct created an impression in the minds of the Respondents that any additional vacancies created to the lower age profile of commanding officers serving in Combat Arms or Combat Arms Support shall also benefit those serving in the Service Streams of the Army. There is no factual basis laid by the Respondents in the pleadings before the tribunal to suggest that any such impression was gathered by officers serving in the Service Streams. There is also no basis for the contention that a legitimate expectation arose in the minds of the Respondents that they shall be promoted to the next rank simultaneously with the officers serving in Combat Arms or Combat Arms Support. As a matter of fact, the provisions of para (68) of the Regulations for the Army extracted earlier itself envisages the grant of promotion to officers from different streams at different points of time depending upon several factors which bring about the time lag for such considerations. Conscious of the fact that such officers serving in different streams may pick up the next rank at different points of time, the Regulations provide for grant of retrospectivity to the promotions so granted to restore inter se batch parity to such officers. There is no denying the fact that the said Regulation continues to be operative and regardless of the date when the officer is promoted, his promotion is so related back as to protect his seniority vis-a-vis his colleagues from the batch serving in other streams. Far from creating any impression or any expectation that promotions shall be simultaneous, the Regulations clearly provide for grant of retrospective effect to the promotions only with a view to restore seniority. This clearly implies that in the very nature of things the promotions could be granted to officers at different points of time and time lag could additionally be in the 0-1-2 scenario. That apart, legitimate expectation as an argument cannot prevail over a policy introduced by the Government which does not suffer from any perversity, unfairness or unreasonableness or which does not violate any fundamental or other enforceable rights vested in the Respondents. In the case in hand, the Government has, as a matter of policy, decided to lower the age profile of officers serving in Combat Arms and Combat Arms Support pursuant to the recommendations made by the Expert Committees - In the absence of any perversity, unreasonableness or unfairness in the policy so introduced, we see no reason to allow the argument based on legitimate expectation to unsettle or undo the policy which is otherwise laudable and intended to render the Indian Army more efficient and better equipped for combat situations. It also is not a case where no reasonable person could have taken the decision which the Government have taken as regards the need for lowering the age profile of the Commanding Officers or their exit after 2-1/2 to 3 years to occupy positions which the Government have created for the officers to occupy till they are considered for promotion to the next higher rank. It is directed that the Appellants shall create 141 additional posts of Colonel to be allocated to 'Combat Support' stream for being utilized by appointing officers who are eligible for promotions against the same as in the year 2009 over a period of 5 years till 2014 - appeal allowed in part.
|