VINAY DALVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Petitioner, a Lt.Colonel in the APTC Corps and an aspirant for promotion to the rank of Colonel complains that he was unjustifiably superseded. He has filed this petition to challenge this and also wants the results of the Selection Board-III held in 1996, 1997 and 1998 to be declared null and void along with respondent's order dated 25.10.2000 rejecting his statutory complaint on the subject matter : He lastly prays that respondents be restrained from making any further promotion to the rank of Colonel (Selection Grade) in APTC Branch meanwhile.

(2.) Petitioner's case as could be gathered from his petition with difficulty is that Selection Board-III held in 1995 and 1996 and 1998 had contravened the pre-1997 and post 1997 selection policy respectively vitiating the selection made in the process. According to him, under pre-1997 selection policy, selection of officers for further promotion was to be made on the basis of vacancy related selection system envisaging availability of vacancies likely to accrue in the ensuing year + 5% as reserve. The Boards were to be held yearly or twice a year and in case of small corps like APTC, to which he belonged, as per the requirement because of their limited number of vacancies sanctioned/authorised in the rank of Colonel. He alleges that Selection Board-III was held in 1994 for promotion to the rank of Colonel for 1970 batch even though there was no vacancy available in the ensuing year. The Board recommended all the three officers of this batch who had to wait for considerable time to pick up their physical promotion in the absence of vacancy., No Selection Board was held in 1995 because of this but it was again held in 1996 when no vacancy was available in the ensuing year and even those recommended for promotion by the Selection Board earlier were still waiting in the wings. This Board considered all the three officers of 1971 batch including, petitioner and rejected them all. Petitioner filed a statutory complaint against this. While this was still pending he along with two other officers of his batch was again considered by Selection Board-III as first review case in June 1997 and rejected but R-4 belonging to 1972 batch was selected. The second review Board was held in 1998 in contravention of the post-1997 selection policy in the absence of any vacancy at the relevant time and he was again rejected thus closing his avenues for promotion for good. He again preferred a statutory complaint against this in 1999 raising various contentions and pointing out the disparity in the application of the selection system/norms which was rejected by order dated 25.10.2000.

(3.) Petitioner's second grievance is that Selection Board-III held in 1994, 1996 and 1997 was ill-constituted as the Head of the APTC, required to be in attendance during the Board meeting to give advice on the employability of the officers in the next rank, as also to brief the Board members on the job contents of various appointments within the corps with a view to assist the Board in objective grading of the officers, was not there and, therefore, the results prepared by these Boards were vitiated and void. He lastly alleges that it was all manipulated by R-S to bestow favour on R-4 and, therefore, the whole exercise was vitiated by malafide and extraneous considerations so much so that tenure of R-3 in MS was prematurely terminated on the complaints filed against, him.