MAJOR S P BHARDWAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by his supersession, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing of impugned order dated 16.6.1994 (Annexure J) as well as quashing of un-communicated adverse/advisory remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold a fresh selection board for his promotion to the rank of Lt.Colonel Selection Grade.

(2.) Before we examine the merits of the case, at the very outset, we would like to mention that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner got premature retirement from Army service from the rank of Major w.e.f 11.3.1998 (Afternoon) (vide Annexure P-8 at page 174 of the paper book). During the hearing of this writ petition, the petitioner has raised some controversy regarding his premature retirement. He contended that after he had made a request to the respondents for premature retirement on 2.9.1996 and before he was actually retired from service, he had withdrawn his request for premature retirement by making an application to the respondents on 23.12.1997 and, therefore, according to him, the respondents could not have retired him pre- maturely w.e.f 11.3.1998 (afternoon). This contention raised on behalf of the petitioner merits no consideration by us in view of the statement made by his counsel before this Court on 20.11.1997 to the effect that the petitioner would not ask for reinstatement in the event his request for premature retirement is accepted by the respondents and would restrict his relief only to consequential benefits flowing from the outcome of the writ petition. Vide order passed on 22.9.1998, it was made clear to the petitioner that the question of his premature retirement will not be gone into unless he makes amendment in the writ petition and challenges his premature retirement. Despite that the petitioner chose not to make any amendment in his writ petition so as to challenge his premature retirement and in that view of the matter we need not go into the validity of premature retirement.

(3.) The question that calls for consideration in this writ of certiorari is whether the respondents were justified in superseding the petitioner and promoting his juniors of the same batch to the rank of Lt.Colonel Selection Grade and also whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, would it be appropriate to direct holding of fresh selection board for consideration of the petitioner for his promotion from Major to Lt. Colonel Selection Grade ignoring his adverse ACRs, if any.