AMRIK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is Lieutenant Colonel (in short, 'Lt. Col.') in the Indian Army in the time scale has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the result of Selecti on Board No. 4 held from July 5, 1994 to July 15, 1994, in which the petitioner was found unfit for promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. by selection. Though the petitioner is presently Lt. Col. but only in the time scale under certain Regulation of the Army but holding the substantive rank of Major. Then there is a prayer in this writ application that the respondents be directed to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner de novo with effect from June, 1990 and to the rank of Col. with effect from December, 1992 while restoring his original seniority with his batchmates who have been selected to those ranks which were denied to the petitioner. The petitioner then claimed certain consequential reliefs.

(2.) This, in fact, was the second round of litigation; the petitioner first filled writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 175 of 1992) earlier when he was found unfit and was not selected to the rank of Lt.Col. by the Selection Board. At that time he was communicated the orders of his non-selection on May 15, 1990 and April 30, 1991. He had contended that his case was not considered in terms of the Army Headquarters Instructions dated January 21, 1985 and January 28, 1988. These two documents were annexed as Annexures 10/A and 10/B to the earlier writ application. That writ application was allowed by a Bench of this Court by Judgment dated March 25, 1994. The Court had observed that it was not denied that the guidelines as contained in Annexures 10/A and 10/B were not followed while considering the case of the petitioner. The Court, therefore, directed that the authority concerned should reconsider de novo the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with the guidelines. This, in short, in my view, was the issue decided by the Court while allowing the first writ application.

(3.) The respondents, it would appear, reconsidered the case of the petitioner after the judgment dated March 25, 1994 in the earlier writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 175 of 1992). Again the Selection Board found him unfit and this decision was communicated to the petitioner. It is this result of the proceeding of the Selection Board No. 4 which held its sittings from July 5 to July 15,1994, that is being challenged by the petitioner.