YASHWANT KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has been passed over for promotion to the rank of Colonel in the Indian Army. It is this decision which has been assailed by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. After the Counter Affidavit was filed by the Respondent, an additional affidavit had been placed on record by the Petitioner in which he has stated that the Respondents have violated Special Army Order 105 (SAO 105) which reads as follows:

(2.) It is the common case that the Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer, namely, Rear Admiraj M.S. Bedi (hereafter referred to as the R.O.), in respect of the ICR for the period 1/06/1994 to 13/12/1994, dated 23rd January, 1995 communommunicated his assessment directly to the Petitioner, on that very day, and obtained the Petitioner's signature thereon. This document is Annexure-P1 to the petition. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the R.O. was biased and inimical towards the Petitioner, and for these reasons had given an unfavourable grading to the Petitioner. It is further argued that it is mandatory that, in conformity with SAO 105, the grading/remarks of the R.O. ought to have been conveyed by him through the I.O and not directly to the Petitioner. As this procedure had not been followed, the Petitioner is entitled for promotion to the rank of the Acting Colonel. As indicated above, the gravamen of the attack in the writ petition had been altogether altered by way of the additional affidavit. The arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner were confined to the averments contained in the additional affidavit, and he took pains to underscore that the Petitioner had no grievance with the established promotion policy of the Army.

(3.) The factual matrix is that the first consideration of the Petitioner for selection to the rank of Colonel was carried out in November, 1994 in respect of Cut off CR 6/93-3/94 and the Petitioner was rejected. Thereafter there was a Special Review (fresh) conducted in July, 1995 in respect of the said Cut off CR. As a Redressal had been granted against the figurative assessment made by the I.O. by orders of the GOC-in-C dated 16/02/1995, the Petitioner was again considered, but rejected. Thereafter, the First Review took place in the month of December, 1995 for Cut off CR 6/94-12/94 where the Petitioner was once again rejected for promotion. The Final Review took place in July, 1996 for Cut off CR May 1995 but the Petitioner was finally rejected. The propriety of the proceedings before the Selection Board was not agitated before me. It is significant to mention that the Redressal dated 1 6/02/1995 was not against the assessment of the Reviewing Officer (R.O.) but against that of the Initiating Officer (I.O.). This is being emphasised for the reason that the Petitioner's case is that the R.O. was prejudiced against him. Since he had assailed the assessment of the I.O. quite obviously, this goes against the grain of the Petition.