MAHABALI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J Present petition has its genesis in a dispute centering around the endorsements recorded by First Technical Officer in petitioner's A. C. Rs. for the year 1984-85 and in seeking redemption from the perceived wrongs, the petitioner has filed the present petition basically for the follow ing reliefs: " (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner expung ing the endorsements recorded by F. T. O. in his ACRs for the years 1985 and 1986 "annexure-2" dated 9 March 1994. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari summoning the records and quashing the impugned A. C. Rs. "

(2.) CONCEDEDLY, the relief (a) aforestated has not been couched in an intelligible manner inasmuch as the expression "an nexure-2 dated 9 March, 1994" has been pinned as a post- script to prayer (a) after the mark of full stop at the end of the figure '1986'. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the order dated 9th March, 1994 by which the statutory com plaint of the petitioner in re-AC. R. 1984-85 has been rejected, is also sought to be quashed besides the endorsement scripted by the FTO in SCR 1984-85 (incorrectly delineated in the prayer (a) as A. C. R. for the year 1985 and 1986 ).

(3.) ACCORDING to rating scale, 'high average' is recorded as worth 6 and 5 points, while 'above average' carries 8 and 7 points and 'out-standing' over-all performance is categorised worth 9 points. The assessment for promotion, according to the policy indi cated in Annexure CA 1, in respect of each officer is made by the members of the Selec tion Board on the basis of (a) war reports, (b) All relevant Confidential Reports earned by the officer; (c) Professional Course done alongwith gradings obtained therein; (d) Honour and Awards; (e) Dis ciplinary Awards, if any; (f) Special Achievements and weaknesses; (g) Service in High Altitude; Field/op. Areas; and (h) Employability and potential including con sistent recommendations for promotion to next higher ranks. It further reveals that an officer is given three considerations for each Selection Grade promotion to the next higher rank as (a) Fresh consideration; (b) 1st Review and (c) Final Review and if the officer is not found fit for promotion even after the final review, he is treated as finally superseded and his case is not considered any further except as a special review case. Army Headquarters Military Secretary's Branch letter dated 6-5-87 (Annexure C. A. II) contains detailed guidelines of assess ment regulating selection for promotion of the officers to the Rank of Lt. Col. and above. Salient features of guidelines are as follows: " (a) selection is to be based on the over -all profile of the officer with Special stress on the performance in criteria command appointment. (b) due consideration is given to officer who show consistency in over-all performance and they are given preference over late starters. (c) the Officers should have been consis tently recommended for promotion to the next rank. Credit is given to those officers who have earned positive recommendations for promotion in their very first report in command. (d) the officer should have done psc/ptsc/post graduate courses and/or worked well in staff/ere/instructional Apptts. However, qualification of psc, ptsc or HO is neither a sub stitute for mediocre performance in command nor a licence for promotion. (e) officer should have the potential for being employed or being rotated in staff, Instruc tional or ERE appointments. (f) character qualities, Disciplinary back ground and decorations form an important input of the over-all profile of the officer and due con sideration should be given while assessing border line cases. (g) while assessing officers with disciplinary background the gravity and nature of the offence and the service level at which the offence was committed should be taken into consideration. (h) cases involving moral turpitude, gross negligence, acts of cowardice, or unofficer-like behaviour which reflects on the moral fibre of an officer will not be recommended for promotion. (j) performance during war forms an impor tant fact of the over- all record of the officer. "