JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :—A simple petition to review an earlier judgment of this bench has, because of the intervening summer vacation, passed through vicissitudes, gathered episodes and been blown up into an exciting chronicle of unsavoury events, injecting more passion than reason, more heat than light, into the forensic proceedings. We kept completely clear of the unhappy imputations and confined counsel to the merits of the review proceeding before us. Justice discards party, friendship, and kindred and is therefore, represented as blind. This objectivity generated clarity and brevity, thanks, of course, to co-operation by counsel on both sides.

2. The facts are few although the fight is furious and the parties are army officers. It is a pity that careerism makes camaraderie a casualty in a profession where self-sacrifice for a higher cause is the dedication. Without moralising, we will state the grievance of the petitioner and examine whether our earlier order deserves reconsideration or reversal. Judges have a vested interest not in their judgment but in the justice of the cause and where the former is in error must unhesitatingly suffer surgery so that no curtail wrong is done and right, to the best of our lights, is done.

3. Two colonels in the army have one post of brigadier to which either may aspire and become Director of Military Farms. In this musical chair scenario the (review) petitioner apprehending that the Central Government was considering a change of policy departing from the 1964 policy, in choosing the officer to become brigadier in charge of the military farms, moved the High Court for a writ to issue to Government against any such new policy. The High Court, before it finally disposed of the case, had directed the Defence Department to select the best colonel to be promoted as brigadier and Farm Director. The selection so made was to be without prejudice to the result of the writ petition but it is significant that the report made was that both the contesting colonels were equal in merit (to run cattle farms?) but the respondent (in the review petition) being senior as colonel may be chosen for the post. Merit being equal, seniority tilts the scales - fair enough. Eventually, the High Court considered the legal import of the 1964, policy and allowed the writ petition which meant that the (review) petitioner would become the brigadier. The respondent colonel rushed to this Court for special leave to appeal which was granted, and after hearing both sides and the learned Attorney General for the Central Government, this Court passed a final order. We see no reason, whatever to depart from that judgment and no basic flaw therein has been pointed out either. It was plainly laid down that no finality nor infallibility attached to the 1964 policy and the Central Government was free to revise or reverse that policy provided it acts justly and fairly. A months time to evolve a new policy, if felt necessary, was granted to Government and the learned Attorney General agreed to abide by this direction.

4. Three factors need more than passing notice. The Defence Ministry - the file had been shown to us at the hearing of the appeal and there is material in the pleading also - has been considering revision of the 1964, policy and the Court has upheld its full freedom to do so. Secondly the post of brigadier fell vacant in 1979 and, on the direction of the High Court, an evaluation of the claims of both was made by the Selection Panel on an updated basis. In this process, both were adjudged equal and the senior (the respondent in the review petition) was recommended for appointment. Thus, it is obvious that had the Defence Ministry been permitted to choose, the respondent would have enjoyed the post. There is nothing outrageous in picking the senior when both are otherwise equal. There is a human side to it also. The senior was to retire in a few months and the other hopefully would have his innings.

5. The third circum