LT COL GURMIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition, after a number of hearings, the narrowed down question which remains for determination is whether the Respondents have considered only the Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as ACRs) onwards from the 11th year of service of the Petitioner. Initially, the consideration of these ACRs was challenged on the ground that the Petitioner ought to have been governed by the Rules applicable to officers in the Army Medical Corps. On the Respondents' categorical statement that the Remount and Veterinary Corps of the Army (RVC) was not governed by the Rules applied in the Army Medical Corps, this ground was very fairly and correctly not pressed. The scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 is limited. It is not to adopt the approach of a Court of Appeal, to re-assess the gradings obtained by the ratee officer, or Judicially review the policy of the Respondents in regard to the promotion Policy of its personnel. Courts may interfere where Principles of Natural Justice have been ignored and thrown to the winds or where the Respondents have acted contrary to the Rules and Policy and/or with mala fides and bias.

(2.) Mr. Nandrajog, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argued that in paragraph 2.1 of the Petition there was an averment that the "Petitioner's career profile has always been 'above average' i.e. box gradings were '8' out of maximum '9' for the period during which ACRs were shown to the Petitioner." In its Counter/Reply the Respondents have mentioned and traversed the ACRs for only five years 12/72, 12/73, 12/74, 05/83 and 05/84. The contention of Mr. Nandrajog is that the only conclusion that could be drawn is that apart from these years, in all other years the Petitioner had received box gradings of '8'. His contention is that once this conclusion is reached the only corollary would be that the Petitioner had received extraordinary and excellent box gradings of '8' consistently from the eleventh years onwards sans the two ACRs for 1983 and 1984. On this concise argument, it was submitted that the writ Petition ought to be allowed as the Respondents had acted contrary to their Rules and Policy.

(3.) Ms. Jyoti Singh, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has emphasised that the assumption drawn by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not logically correct. Since the assertion in the writ Petition was confined to the ACRs shown to the Petitioner the corresponding reply was restricted only for this period that had been mentioned. It is her contention that in the years 1985-1989, the 'dark period', the Respondents' policy was that ACRs were not shown to the officer concerned. Hence, the box gradings for these years were not traversed in the counter/reply of the Respondents. Had the Petitioner's averment in the Petition not been restricted only to the ACRs shown to him, the Respondents would have specifically replied that during this "dark period", the Petitioner had not received box gradings of '8'.