K P SREEKANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the annual report generated by respondent No.4 for the period from 1/10/1999 to 31/9/2000 land also for setting aside the proceedings of the Special Review Board conducted by the respondents for the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Air Vice Marshal and also for quashing the letter dated 20/4/2001 issued by respondents to the petitioner intimating him that consequent upon drop in his performance his clearance for promotion by Promotion Board 1/2000 as reviewed and on the basis of the review the petitioner did not make the grade for promotion to the acting rank of Air Vice Marshal.

(2.) The petitioner is a serving Air Commodore in the Indian Air Force. The petitioner was commissioned in the Fighter Stream of the Indian Air Force in the year 1966 and since then the petitioner has more than 34 years of service in the Indian. Air Forces. while working as aforesaid the petitioner was considered for promotion from the rank of Air Commodore to the rank of Air Vice Marshal. The Promotion Board considered the case of the petitioner onthe basis of his confidential reports and found him suitable for elevation to the active rank of Air Vice Marshal. Accordingly, the petitioner was empanelled and was placed at serial No.10 of the panel prepared by the Board for promotion to the rank of acting Air Vice Marshal. The petitioner was informed the said fact by a letter dated 12/6/2000 wherein it was stated that the Promotion Board for Air Vice Marshal has found the petitioner suitable for elevation to the acting rank of Air Vice Marshal subject to availability of vacancies, medical fitness and maintaining continuity of performance. After the said clearance the petitioner was placed at position No.10 in accordance with the seniority in his service.

(3.) At this stage it is relevant to mention that when an officer is considered for promotion by the promotion Board the past annual reports of the officer for a period of 5 years are considered. In the case of promotion to the ranks of Air Vice Marshal and above the results of the Promotion Board are to be further approved by the Ministry of Defence. The aforesaid panel prepared by the Promotion Board is also valid for a period of one year. During the course of validity of the said panel nine officers placed above the petitioner in the panel by virtue of their seniority have already been promoted to the post of acting rank of Air Vice Marshal. During the currency of the aforesaid one year period a further vacancy arose on 31/3/2001. When the said vacancy had arisen the currency of the panel had not expired. But instead of granting promotion to the petitioner to the aforesaid rank the respondents conducted a Special Board on 23/3/2001 on the alleged ground to ascertain whether or not the petitioner has been able to maintain continuity of his performance. It is brough out on record that before the aforesaid date a further confidential report for the period for 11/10/1999 to 30/9/2000 was made available and therefore, the respondents convened a Review Promotion Board to consider the position concerning continuity of performance of the petitioner.