SUNIL BRIJMOHAN BAWA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, holding the rank of a Major in Corps of Signals since 1983, has been denied promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. as a result of which several juniors to him have superseded him. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid supersession, he has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of the said supersession.

(2.) THE petitioner was commissioned in December, 1970 and given the rank of 2nd Lt. in the Corps of Signals in the Indian Army. He was promoted as Lieutenant in 1972, Captain in 1973 and Major in 1983. All the aforesaid promotions were given to him in his turn and in normal course. According to the petitioner, he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and capability to the entire satisfaction of his seniors and, therefore, there is no justification for his supersession. He further submits that he has also done extraordinary work as a trainer of Despatch Rider Team in Golden Arrow Division. In the year 1989, the petitioner claims to have been considered as "the only officer in the Unit who could do well in operations" and was for that reason, appointed Communication Company Commander. According to the petitioner, he was always awarded above average grading (7 or 8 points out of 9) in all annual confidential reports except 1985-86 and 1986-87 and, therefore, claims to be a disciplined, sincere and dedicated soldier. He also claims that his work during the floods in Ferozpur city in 1988-89 was highly appreciated and he was recommended for award of Vishisht Sewa Medal. He, therefore, submits that he has been arbitrarily superseded, denying his valuable right to be fairly and properly considered for promotion under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) ON being noticed, the respondents filed their counter affidavit to the petition. The respondents submit that promotions in the Army are based on merits which is assessed by Selection Boards on well established and known factors, viz. , (i) War reports; (ii) confidential Reports; (iii) Professional course grading; (iv) Honours and Awards; (v) Disciplinary punishments, if any; (vi) Special Achievements and weaknesses; (vii) Service in High Altitude/field Areas etc. ; and (viii) Employability and potential including consistent recommendation for promotion. It is also submitted that an officer is judged as aforesaid not only once but thrice. If the officer is not found fit for promotion even in these three considerations, he is considered unfit. As regards the petitioner, it is submitted that the Selection Board No. 4 which is authorised to recommend promotion of Majors to the acting rank of Lt. Col. , has considered his case in May, 1988 and found him unfit for the purpose. The petitioner's case was first reviewed in May, 1989 by the Board consisting of different personnel but the said Board again found him unfit. The final review of the petitioner's performance was done in May, 1990 by the Selection Board consisting of altogether different personnel, but unfortunately the said Board also found the petitioner unfit. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner's case has been considered impartially not only by one but three separate and independent Boards and found him unfit for promotion. It is also submitted that the selection system in the Army is detailed and objective and ensures fair selection. It is, therefore submitted that the petitioner cannot make any legitimate grievance in the matter. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.