SARAT CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Re : I.A. No. 9763 of 2010

(2.) HAVING heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union and having perused the contents of I.A. No. 9763 of 2010, this Court asked the counsel for the petitioner as to why he did not impugn the contents of letter dated 29.1.2010 alongwith the writ petition itself as the writ petition was filed on 26.8.2010, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner received the copy of the letter dated 29.1.2010 from the authorities when he applied for the same under Right to Information Act under letter of the RTI Cell, ADG, AE dated 10.11.2010 and earlier petitioner was not aware about the contents of the said letter. The prayer made in the interlocutory application is allowed and letter dated 29.1.2010, Annexure -13 to the interlocutory application is permitted to be challenged in the instant writ petition. I.A. No. 9763 of 2010 is, accordingly, disposed of.

(3.) PETITIONER alongwith 19 others was shortlisted for promotion on the post of Brigadier vide proceeding conducted by the Selection Board held on 17 -19.1.2007, the panel of officers approved for promotion to the acting rank of Brigadier (Artillery) was published in March 2007 and is contained in Annexure -2 to this application. Under in box message dated 12.7.2007, Annexure -3, petitioner was given acting rank of Brigadier directing him to join the place of posting by 20.8.2007. Before the petitioner could take the acting rank of Brigadier and join the post, his confidential remark was initiated by the Initiating Officer on 13.7.2007 who assessed him above average and gave 8 points in rating scale. Such statement has been made in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition. The Reviewing Officer and Superior Reviewing Officer noted their pen picture about the petitioner on 4.8.2007 in which Drop -in -Performance was recorded. Petitioner challenged the Drop -in -Performance recorded by the Reviewing Officer and the Superior Reviewing Officer before the Chief of the Army Staff vide his non -statutory appeal, which was rejected and the order was communicated to the petitioner by the office of the Military Secretary under communication dated 24.4.2008, Annexure -11, operative portion whereof is quoted below: - -