BALWAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has inter alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to set aside the endorsement made by the Reviewing Officer (in short, 'RO') in the Annual Confidential Report ( in short, ACR' ) of the year 1996 and by both Initiating Officer ( in short, 'IO' ) and RO in the ACR of the year 1998 and to direct them to promote him to the rank of Risaldar as per his original seniority.

(2.) The petitioner entered the Army Service in the year 1974. He attended Junior Leaders Course in the year 1998 and also imparted instructions in the same Academy to the young Officers and Junior Commission Officers (JCOs). His promotion to the rank of Risaldar was due. Allegedly, he was superceded in the year 1999, as he was found ineligible therefor having regard to the criteria as regards good ACRs. The grading in the ACRs of the petitioner from 1994 to 2000 admittedly was in the following terms :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_417_ILRDLH11_2003Html1.htm</FRM> From a perusal of the aforementioned grading, it appears that both for the years 1999 and 2000', he received '7' and 7'by IO and RO.

(3.) Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that having regard to decision of the Apex Court in U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain & Ors.1, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give the petitioner warning and/or counseling so as to improve his performance, but as the same has not been done, the impugned orders must be held to be bad in law. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to various circular letters operating in the field. The learned counsel would contend that only in one year, i.e., 1998 the petitioner was adjudged below the benchmark on this ground alone he was admittedly not promoted, despite his being senior to others. It is not in dispute that the cases of those, whose ACRs were found below the benchmark, had not been promoted. The same had also not been communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel would contend that from various documents, it would appear that the competent authorities have recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion, but neither the same had been taken into consideration nor the petitioner had been granted any relief. The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon Air Vice Marshal S.L. Chabra, VSM (Retd.) v. Union of India & Anr., 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 441 Sedu Ram (Havildar) v. The Chief of Army Staff & Ors.; 2000 III AD (DELHI) 134 and A.S. Saharan (Brig.) v. Union of India & Ors., 2000 IV AD (DELHI) 597 According to the learned counsel, the services of the petitioner had also not been extended for extraneous