SANJAY KASHYAP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for the quashing of order dated 10th September, 2007 passed by the Ministry of Defence rejecting the statutory complaint of the petitioner in the light of his career profile, relevant records and analysis/recommendations of the Army Headquarters and holding that the petitioner had not been empanelled for promotion to the rank of Colonel on account of his overall profile and comparative merit, and also the order dated 20th October, 2009 passed by the Principal Bench, Armed Force Tribunal in T. A. No. 122/2009, titled as "Lt. Col. Sanjay Kashyap, v. Union of India & Ors. " dismissing his original petition seeking the setting aside of the order of the Ministry of Defence dated 10th September, 2007 holding that it was for the Selection Committee to assess and give the appropriate weightage to the conflicting ACRs of the petitioner given by the Initiating Officer and another by the Reviewing Officer and the remarks given by SRO and also rejecting the petition on the ground of delay.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner had made a statutory complaint dated 13th May, 2007 against his non-empanelled for promotion to the rank of Colonel by No. 3 Selection Board held in April, 2005, wherein the petitioner was considered as a fresh case. This complaint was filed after his earlier complaint was dismissed which dismissal was not challenged by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was awarded outstanding ACR with grading of 9/9 by the Initiating Officer for June, 2000 and May, 2001, whereas the Reviewing Officer had awarded him 7/9. Since there was a difference of two points between the Initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer, it was mandatory for the SRO (Senior Reviewing Officer) as a balancer to endorse the petitioner's report objectively. The petitioner contended that his one Annual Confidential Report was required to be quashed and set aside on technical grounds of being contrary to the Special Army Order on the subject. The complaint of the petitioner was, however, dismissed by order dated 10th September 2007 whereby the petitioner had sought that all the assessments done by the Reviewing Officer be examined and in those case where the Reviewing Officer had given him "7" points or below, such assessment be set aside being subjective and inconsistent and his case for promotion be reviewed de novo.

(3.) Ministry of Defence examined the grievance of the petitioner in the light of his career profile, relevant records and analysis/ recommendation of Army Headquarter and inferred that all confidential reports impugned by the petitioner in the reckonable profile including confidential report impugned by the petitioner are fair, objective, performance based, well corroborated and devoid of any bias/inconstancy. The confidential report 01/02-05/02 was also found to be technically valid and it was held that the petitioner had not been empanelled for promotion to the rank of Colonel on account of his overall profile and comparative merit and, therefore, the statutory complaint of the petitioner dated 13th May, 2007 was also rejected.