D.S.DHILLON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Lt. Colonel presently posted as Staff Officer at Headquarters, Army Training Command, Shimla, and feels aggrieved by his supersession for further promotion as a Colonel and has, therefore, preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the legal validity thereof. According to him, his ACR for the year 1987 -88 has been mala fidely and intentionally down -graded and is the cause of his supersession. According to him, this ACR is inconsistent with his over all career profile and otherwise arbitrarily written. He has, therefore, prayed that this ACR be quashed and the respondents directed to re -consider his promotion in accordance with the existing Rules.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he has a outstanding carreer and has never been superseded till 1986, According to him, he was commissioned as a second Lieutenant in the year 1968, promoted as Lieutenant in the year 1970, Captain in 1971, Major in the year 1977 and Lt. Colonel in the year 1986, on due dates and on proper appreciation of his merits. These promotions would, by themselves indicate that he was rated a .meritorious Army Officer and given his due promotions from time to time. Even after 1987 -88 his ACRs are above average like his ACRs prior to 1985 -86. The ACR for the year 1987 -88, according to him, has been arbitrarily written in a manner as to down -grade him and the same has, therefore, resulted in his unjustified supersession. The petitioner attributes this to one Col. U.D. Thorat, who according to him has done this arbitrary marking as Initiating Officer without obtaining full facts and details about the petitioners work and performance and did not himself had an opportunity of watching the petitioners performance. The petitioner claims to have submitted complaints against the same but the same have been rejected without giving them any serious thought by Memos. Ex. PD, PK and PL Since the ACR for the year 1987 -88, according to the petitioner, deserves to be quashed by this Honble Court, orders Annexures PL, PK and PL also deserve to be similarly quashed,

(3.) The respondents in their reply raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had filed a similar writ petition (CWP No, 5987 of 1989) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, assailing the ACRs of 1986 -87 and 1987 -88 and the said High Court had considered his grievances about them but only directed that the petitioners case for promotion to higher rank be considered on the basis of his seniority, record of service and performance in accordance with the directions issued by respondent No.2 on 13th April, 1988. It is, therefore submitted that yet another petition on the same subject -matter is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that ACR of 1987 -88 was written in the normal course and in accordance with the existing instructions and is in accordance with the existing rules. The procedure followed in grading the ACR, according to the respondents, is such that no prejudice can be caused to any Array Officer. According to the respondents, the Initiating Officer first gives marks based on performance of the officer and writes his opinion about him which is reviewed by the Reviewing Officer and further reviewed by a Special Reviewing Officer. Each of the three officers do grading independently and the over -all -assessment of ACR is done on the basis of these three grading. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners ACR for 1987 -88 has been written properly. Allegations of bias of Col. Thorat are emphatically denied. As regards proceedings of the selection -board, it is submitted that the selection boards consist of high -army -officials who took decisions on over all profile and batch merits of the officer. This, according to the respondents, has been done six times and that too by different selection boards constituted by different officers and all of them have found the petitioner unfit for promotion. The respondents have also filed a copy of the Selection -System (Annexure R -4) which according to them, ensures objectivity in the matter of selection. It -is, therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of substance and should be dismissed.