LALIT KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has argued his case in person at considerable length took us through the chequered history of his service career right from 1973-74 and emphasised that he had been unjustly treated as a deserter in1974 which fact adversely affected his career-advancement in the Armed services. It may he noted that the incident of 1974 had concluded after the petitioner had moved the department at various levels in vain and the action was not challenged in court. But in 1987 after the petitioner was denied promotion he filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 920 of 1987, which this court did not consider fit to entertain but a suggestion was made that he could move a fresh representation to his administrative superiors, preferably the Appellate Auhority. The court expressed the hope that the competent Appellate Authority will look into his grievances and will pass suitable orders on the basis of the material placed before it. It was left to the Appellate Authority to give a personal hearing to the petitioner, if thought proper. After this order of 12/08/1987, it appears that the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected. The petitioner thereupon moved a petition in the High court which has given rise to this petition.

(2.) It appears from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that pursuant to the order of the High court dated 26/10/1989 the case of the petitioner was considered afresh without taking into consideration the punishment awarded to him in 1974 and the adverse entry made in his ACR of 1973-74. A High Power Committee was appointed to undertake a special review. After taking into consideration the directions of the High court in the order of 26/10/1989 the Committee found him 'unfit' for promotion in November, 1989. In the subsequent reviews of May, 1990 and march, 1991, also he was similarly considered but was found 'unfit'. Subsequently, in April, 1992, his case was once again considered and on his being found fit he was granted promotion as Time-scale Lt. Col. Therefore, the petitioner's grievance that he was victimised on account of the episode of 1974 and the adverse entry made pursuant thereto in the ACR of 1973-74 does not appear to be correct.

(3.) Having taken these facts into consideration and having perused the impugned order of the High court, we do not think that this is a matter which deserves interference at our hands. Hence the special leave petition is dismissed.