IMPORTANT POINTS
Every employee/officer has the right to be considered for promotion.
Stipulation in the policy dated 14.01.2004 that it could be reviewed after five years does not mean that the policy could not be reviewed in two years.
Promotion has to be considered in accordance with the policy as prevalent at the time of consideration.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Promotion – Every employee/officer has the right to be considered for promotion. (Para 6)
       (b) Service law – Promotion policy – Employer has full authority to frame policy for promotion and change/modify the same as and when required – Instantly the policy dated 14.01.2004 stipulated that it could be reviewed after five years – That not being a statutory stipulation, it does not mean that the policy could not be reviewed in two years – Amendment in 2006, held, within competency of the employer. (Para 14)
       (2011) 10 SCC 121 – Relied upon
       (c) Service law – Promotion – Promotion has to be considered in accordance with the policy as prevalent at the time of consideration – Instantly appellant’s case came for considered in 2011 when policy 2006 was prevalent – No error in considering case of appellant in accordance with policy 2006. (Para 15)
       (d) Service law – Promotion of AFMS officers – 2006 policy restricting benefit of PhD degree only to those awarded by the Universities recognized by MCI – No error in such restriction for mediacl officers. (Para 16)
       (e) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Section 11 – Letter of joint secretary MCI – Cannot have precedence over clear statutory provisions contained in Section 11. (Para 22)
       (a) Service law – Promotion of AFMS officers – Marks for full time structured training programme – Certificate produced by appellant nowhere indicating that appellant completed full time structured training programme – Further, no evidence of appellant being on study leave as required – No error in not allocating mark for such training programme. (Para 25, 26)
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant was commissioned in the army in Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMC) on 06.04.1984, received his promotion to the rank of Colonel with effect from 01.01.2007. On 15.11.2011 the appellant was considered for promotion to the rank of Brigadier by Promotion Board (Medical) but could not be selected for promotion. Appellant had filed a statutory complaint against the non-promotion by the Board. The competent authority duly examined the statutory complaint and granted partial redress by expansion of the entire assessment of the SRO in CR 2010. On 19.06.2013, appellant was considered for promotion by Review Promotion Board (Medical) but could not be selected. Being aggrieved by non-promotion, appellant filed O.A. which has been dismissed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
       Fining of the Court:
       There is no error in impugned judgment.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

This appeal has been filed questioning the judgment dated 20.07.2015 of Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi by which O.A. No. 428/2013 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant was commissioned in the army in Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMC) on 06.04.1984, received his promotion to the rank of Colonel with effect from 01.01.2007. On 15.11.2011 the appellant was considered for promotion to the rank of Brigadier by Promotion Board (Medical) but could not be selected for promotion. Appellant had filed a statutory complaint against the non-promotion by the Board. The competent authority duly examined the statutory complaint and by decision dated 08.04.2013 granted partial redress by expansion of the entire assessment of the SRO in CR 2010. On 19.06.2013, appellant was considered for promotion by Review Promotion Board (Medical) but could not be selected. Being aggrieved by non-promotion, appellant filed O.A.No.428/2013. The O.A. has been dismissed by the Armed Forces Tribunal vide judgment dated 20.07.2015 aggrieved by said judgment this appeal has been filed.

2. The appellant's case before the Tribunal was that in his consideration for promotion he was denied marks for Ph.D. degree in Anthropology (Science) awarded to him by Berhampur University in 1998. He further questions non granting of any mark for his Post Graduate training qualification obtained from G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur and further no marks were awarded on his Master degree in Personnel Management in 2005 obtained from Pune University. The Tribunal although accepted the claim of grant of mark for Master degree in Personnel Management but rejected the claim of the appellant for grant of any mark for Ph.D. degree as well as Post Graduate training in Pediatrics.

3. Shri Yashank P. Adhyaru, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant contends that the Ph.D. degree awarded by Berhampur University, which university was competent to award Ph.D. degree, was fully entitled to be awarded marks by Promotion Board (Medical). He submits that the grant of Ph.D. degree was not dependent on any recognition by Medical Council of India. Relying on a letter dated 15.12.2017 addressed by Government of India to the Director (Medical), Central Organisation ECHS, Delhi Cantt., where it has been clarified that Medical Council of India has informed that recognition of Ph.D. degree does not come under the purview of Medical Council of India, it is submitted that the denial of marks to the appellant was illegal. He further submits that Post Graduate training obtained from a recognised medical institution by the appellant was also entitled to be awarded marks. He further submits that the promotion policy which was earlier issued in the year 2004 could not have been reviewed before five years as was contemplated by policy dated 14.01.2004. The amendment of policy by subsequent policy dated 22.05.2006 was not valid. He submits that had the appellant been granted the marks by Promotion Board (Medical) on the aforesaid two counts he would have surely been promoted to the rank of Brigadier. Non promotion had adversely affected him which needs to be redressed by this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India refuting the above submission contends that Ph.D. degree obtained by appellant by Berhampur University is not recognised by Medical Council of India as per Medical Council of India Act, 1956, hence, no error has been committed by the Promotion Board (Medical) in not rewarding any marks to the appellant. It is further contended that the Post Graduate Training which is relied by the appellant is also not training of any integrated course obtained by the appellant after taking study leave, nor any certificate of passing the training course has been filed by the appellant to make him eligible to award of any mark on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 794

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAA.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.COL. IVS GAHLOT – APPELLANT(S)VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)CIVIL APPEAL NO.8047 Of 2018 (@ C.A. Diary No.34810 of 2015)Decided On : 06-08-2018

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
COL. IVS GAHLOT – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8047 Of 2018 (@ C.A. Diary No.34810 of 2015)
Decided On : 06-08-2018