1. Appeal against non-promotion of army officer to Lt. Colonel based on an adverse Annual Confidential Report. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1836
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.B.Shah : J.Jagannadha Rao
Amrik Singh
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 5651 of 1997
Date of Decision : 11/16/00
Judicial review in promotion matters is limited to ensuring the correct process was followed; courts cannot substitute their own view for that of the selection authority if relevant materials were considered and no irrelevant factors influenced the decision.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Promotion by Selection - Judicial Review - Scope of interference in assessment of merit - Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching a decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such - When relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus to the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits (Paras 15 and 17).
(B) Service Law - Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) - Adverse remarks - For the purpose of promotion, ACRs of the previous five years are relevant - The court cannot direct the exclusion of an adverse remark from consideration for promotion, nor can it substitute its own view on the correctness of such remarks unless specific allegations of mala fides are proven (Paras 13 and 18).
Facts of the case:
An officer was denied promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel because of an adverse remark in the ACR for the year 1985-86, which fell within the five-year relevant period. The reviewing officer had noted that the officer was advised to display resoluteness during execution of operations. Despite subsequent outstanding performance ratings and a direction by the High Court for de novo consideration, the selection board again refused the promotion based on the same adverse remark. The officer challenged this decision, claiming that his case was not properly considered relative to his batchmates.
Findings of Court:
The adverse remark for the year 1985-86 was a relevant consideration for promotion in 1990. There was no evidence of mala fide intent by the reviewing officer. The selection board had access to the records of the officer's batchmates and followed the necessary process. The court found that the administrative decision had a nexus to the facts on record.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the court could interfere with the selection board's assessment of merit for promotion and whether an adverse remark in an ACR could be excluded from consideration in the absence of proven mala fides.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in matters of assessment of merit for promotion, judicial review is limited to examining the process of decision-making rather than the decision itself. Since the selection board considered relevant ACRs and followed the guidelines, the court could not substitute its view for that of the authorities.
Result: the appeal is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The appellant argued that his case was not properly considered, while the respondent argued the adverse ACR justified non-promotion. (Para 1 , 11 , 18 , 19 )
3. The court held that judicial review is limited to the process, not the decision, and the adverse remark was relevant material. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 21 )
4. Judicial review of promotion decisions is limited to process correctness, not substitution of assessment or evaluation of merit. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 21 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the court declined to interfere with the non-promotion despite subsequent good performance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review in matters of assessment of merit for promotion in the armed forces?
Judicial review is limited to finding whether the process for reaching the decision was correctly observed, not the decision itself. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 21 )
7. Can an adverse remark in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) be challenged as mala fide without impleading the reporting officer?
No, without specific allegations of mala fide and impleading the reporting officer as a party, the adverse remark cannot be challenged as mala fide. (Para 18 )
8. Is an assessment of 5 marks by a Reviewing Officer in an ACR a relevant factor for non-promotion if subsequent ratings are higher?
Yes, when considering promotion for a specific year, the ACRs for the preceding five years, including one with an adverse mark, are relevant. (Para 13 , 17 )
(1) THIS is an appeal preferred by the appellant, who is a Lt. Colonel in the Indian Army, against the judgment of the High Court of Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 8083/94 dated 18.2.1997. The writ petition filed against that judgment was dismissed by the learned Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, Justice D.P. Wadhwa (as he then was) and learned Justice Radha Mohan Prasad, the other Judge of the Bench, writing separate judgment. So far as the judgment of the learned Chief Justice is concerned, it states that the non- promotion of the appellant along with his batchmates who were promoted in 1990, could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and that the fresh assessment that was made pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 175/1992 dated 25.3.1994 could not be interfered with under writ jurisdiction. The other learned Judge in his separate judgment, made certain observations stating that the appellants previous records were good and that the appellant otherwise deserved promotion but the learned Judge said, in writ jurisdiction he could not interfere, because it would amount to a review of the decision of the Selection Committee, as an appellate authority. Thus, in spite of certain observations made in favour of the appellant, learned Justice Radha Mohan Prasad ultimately concurred with the judgment of learned Chief Justice, in dismissing the writ petition. It is against this judgment that his appeal has been preferred.
(2) ON an earlier occasion, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 175/1992 challenging the orders dated 15.5.90 and 30.4.1991 by reason of which promotion of the appellant to the rank of Lt. Colonel was refused on the basis of the ACRs of the year for 1985-86. It was prayed in that writ petition that the order dated 15.3.87 and the other order of January 1989 communicated on 3.2.1989, rejecting the promotion should be quashed. A further direction was sought to issue a writ of mandamus for considering the case of the appellant for promotion along with his batchmates who were promoted in 1990.
(3) IT will be noticed that the appellant was subsequently promoted as Lt. Colonel (Time Scale). But in the present proceedings, he is claiming that he ought to have been promoted as Lt. Colonel from an anterior date from 1990 when his batchmates were promoted to higher posts as Lt. Colonel.
(4) SO far as the promotion to the post of Lt. Colonel is concerned, it is done by way of selection process. During the course of the selection, the ACRs of the previous 5 years would be considered. With regard to the ACRs of each year, there is an assessment made by the immediate superior officer called "Investigating Officer", then a Senior Officer above him called "Reviewing Officer" and finally a Senior Officer above the Reviewing Officer called "Senior Reviewing Officer" of a very high rank.
(5) THE records relating to this case were produced before the High Court and also before us. It appears that for the year 1985-86, the Investigating Officer had given a fairly good report about the appellant on 7.2.86, The Reviewing Officer while giving him good report in various respects, made a particular remark which was adverse to the appellant in the sense that the appellant was "advised to display resoluteness during execution of operations". While the I.O. granted an assessment marking as no.7, the R.Os assessment was 5. The S.R.O., who thereafter gave his remarks, gave him an assessment of no.5. In other words, the assessment, so far as the year 1985-86 was concerned, was 7,5,5, as assessed by the I.O., R.O. and S.R.O. respectively. The assessment by the S.R.O. was on 14th November, 1986. For 1990, ACRs in previous 5 years were relevant.
(6) IN subsequent ACRs of the later years, invariably the appellant got various ranking on assessment at 7,8 and 9 also. Assessment at 9 appears to be a case where the performance is "outstanding".
(7) BUT in the context of the disp
