G S GAUR (MAJOR) Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Maj. G. S. Gaur in the Crops of Signals is a regular permanent Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army, who has brought this writ petition praying for a writ of Certiorari to quash order passed by respondents 1 and 2 communicated by respondent No. 2 by his letter No. 01710/MS4 A/2052/S, D/(MS) dated Nov 6, 1981 rejecting the statutory complaint of the petitioner, for a writ of Mandamus commanding the expunging of adverse entries in the Annual -Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1974 -75 initiated by Respondent No. 3, Col. V. K, Ahuja, and a further command to respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the rank of Acting Lt. Col. in the Corps of Signals, The petition is contested by the respondents, but the reply affidavit submitted only by one Lt. Col. Dalka Singh on behalf of Respondent No. 3 and no affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, and nor has been impleaded as a party by name and against whom the allegations of malafides are made by the petitioner specifically. After the filing of the reply affidavit, rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner on Nov lit, 1983 refuting the allegations made regarding the representation and the other allegations for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his promotion on the post of Acting Lt. Col. A further application was made by the petitioner to sent for the record at the time of arguments relating to the services, etc., of the petitioner and the files containing the consideration of the petitioner for promotion thrice and not giving him the promotion as desired.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner as enumerated above from the prayer in the petition is three fold Firstly, it relates to the quashment of the order passed by Respondent No. 1 by rejecting his representation, what is known & 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner as enumerated above from the prayer in the petition is three fold Firstly, it relates to the quashment of the order passed by Respondent No. 1 by rejecting his representation, what is known & ¢ statutory complaint under the Army Instructions, secondly, expunging of the adverse entries for the year 1974 -75 in his Annual Confidential Report by respondent No. 3 and lastly, the directions to respondents 1 and 2 to f remote the petitioner to the rank of Acting Lt. Col. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr, R. P. Sethi, placing the record relating to the consideration of the petitioner for his promotion to the rank of Acting Lt. Col., has refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) BEFORE coming up on the first point, I would like So discuss points 2 and 3 as they relate to the interpretation of Section 27 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Army Instructions Issued from time to time regulating the procedure for the purposes of Section 27 of the Act and also the inductions relating to consideration for promotion to the higher rank by the authorities concerned.