RAJENDRA SINGH BADATHOKI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made in the present writ petition to the order of discharge of the petitioner from the army service. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 20.10.73 and he was promoted to the rank of Havaldar on 24.5.85. According to the petitioner, thereafter he was due for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar, which is a promotional post. It is stated that although the petitioner qualified for such promotion, he was not given promotion to the said post and was instead discharged from service under the impugned order, the legality of which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his submissions stated that the petitioner qualified for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar, as would be apparent from the contents of Annexure-3. Relying on the said document, Counsel submitted that the said document clearly indicates that the petitioner passed the promotion cadre for Naib Subedar Group-D and, therefore, the action of the respondents in discharging instead of promoting is illegal and without jurisdiction. He also submitted that if the petitioner was not recommended for the said promotion because of certain adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports, the petitioner should have been given the opportunity to represent as against the said adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports and also that the respondents should have informed the petitioner that he was to improve upon his performance, which is a requirement under the policy of the respondents. He also submitted that if the petitioner did not satisfy the criteria, his case should not have been considered at all but the very fact that his case was considered and that the petitioner was shown passed in the promotional cadre for Naib Subedar, itself indicates that the petitioner should have been promoted to the said post and, therefore, the action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner is illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the respondents,'however, submitted that according to the promotion policy in the Indian Army an army personnel has to fulfil the laid down criteria like discipline, medical category, educational qualifications and annual confidential reports for further promotion. My specific attention was drawn to paragraph 6 of the Army Headquarters letter dated 10.1.1993 whereunder the annual confidential reports criteria for promotion is prescribed as under: