Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 225

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
LT GEN RAVI DASTANE, AVSM, VSM – APPELLANT(S)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO 9721 OF 2014
Decided on : 01-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Uday Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Shivani Lal, Advocate, Mr. Hiren Dasan, Advocate, Mr. M.K. Tripathi, Advocate and Mr. Mohan Pandey, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. R. Bala, Advocate and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Selection of Lieutenant General as Army Commander – Seniority may be a relevant consideration – Appointing authority is best suited to determine who among officers in rank of Lieutenant General is suited for appointment against a vacancy.

Headnote:(A) Service Law – Selection – Army – Rejection of challenge to selection of two Lieutenant Generals as Army Commanders – An officer has no vested right to claim promotion on the basis of seniority alone – But that does not mean that authority entitled to make appointment must ignore seniority – Officers of Army who attain rank of Lieutenant General progress through hierarchical structure after fulfilling rigorous criteria of assessment – Principle that appointment of an Army Commander is made by selection does not require that criterion of seniority should be Ignored – Principle that seniority alone does not confer right to appointment to a selection post does not mean that authority making appointments must be oblivious to seniority – Reasons for rejection of statutory complaint cannot be read to mean that selection of third and fourth respondents as Army Commanders was based solely on their seniority, without regard to merit or to a comparative evaluation – Service profile of seven officers was taken into account by COAS in making recommendation – There has been no breach of Transaction of Business Rules – Appointment of third and fourth respondents was duly approved by ACC – ACC was apprised of
       material facts before its approval was communicated – Finding of Tribunal in this regard cannot be faulted – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 30)
       (B) Service Law – Selection of Lieutenant Generals as Army Commanders – Seniority may be a relevant consideration – Seniority brings with it experience of organisation, experience in handling situations and experience in perspective and planning – However, the post remains a selection post – In making appointments to such crucial posts which carry enormous functional responsibilities bearing on defence needs of Armed Forces and ultimately of nation, a range of relevant considerations can be borne in mind – It would not be appropriate in course of judicial review to confine appointing authority to a narrow range of considerations – Appointing authority is best suited to determine who among officers in rank of Lieutenant General is suited for appointment against a vacancy. (Para 21)
       Facts of Case:
       By present appeal1, Appellant/Lieutenant General has questioned correctness of a judgment dated 6 September 2013 of Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal. AFT rejected his challenge to selection of Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh, GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and Lieutenant General Sanjiv Chachra, GOC-in-C, Northern Command as Army Commanders. After decision of AFT, Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh (third respondent) was appointed as Chief of Army Staff and retired from service on 31 December 2016. Lieutenant General Chachra retired from service on 31 May 2014. Appellant retired from service on 30 September 2014.
       Findings of Court:
       Submissions which have been urged on behalf of the appellant are lacking in merit. Appellant as well as the third and fourth respondents have since retired from service. Third respondent retired from service as COAS. Appeal was admitted to hearing by an order of this Court dated 13 October 2014, after the retirement of appellant on 30 September 2014. Counsel for appellant had also urged that grievance of appellant should be considered, since claim made by him to a rank is involved. In order to render finality to grievance which has been raised before this Court, we have addressed the challenge on merits and have not found any substance in it.
       Result – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud. J.

By the present appeal [The Civil Appeal was admitted for hearing on 13 October 2014.], Lieutenant General Ravi Dastane has questioned the correctness of a judgment dated 6 September 2013 of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The AFT rejected his challenge to the selection of Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh, GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and Lieutenant General Sanjiv Chachra, GOC-in-C, Northern Command as Army Commanders. After the decision of the AFT, Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh (the third respondent) was appointed as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and retired from service on 31 December 2016. Lieutenant General Chachra retired from service on 31 May 2014. The appellant retired from service on 30 September 2014.

2. There are seven Army Commanders and one Vice Chief of Army Staff in the structure of the Indian Army. Six of them command the six regional commands of the Army while the seventh commands the Army Training Command. The position of Vice Chief of Army Staff is equivalent to an Army Commander. The post of Army Commander/Vice Chief of Army Staff, in the rank of Lieutenant General, is the second highest in the hierarchy of the Indian Army, below the Chief of Army Staff. Promotion to the post of Army Commander (General Officer Commanding in Chief) is by selection from amongst officers holding the rank of Lieutenant General, who fulfill the eligibility criteria.

3. On 22 March 2012, General V K Singh, as Chief of Army Staff, examined a proposal for filling up vacancies in two posts of Army Commander which were to arise on 1 June 2012 on the impending retirement of Lieutenant General S R Ghosh, GOC-in-C, Western Command and the appointment of Lieutenant General Bikram Singh, GOC-in-C, Eastern Command on his appointment as COAS on 31 May 2012. A seniority list of officers in the cadre of Lieutenant General was placed on file. Seven of the senior-most amongst them, who fulfilled the conditions stipulated for promotion as Army Commanders were listed out. The seven officers were:

1 Lt Gen Dalbir Singh;

2 Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachra;

3 Lt Gen RP Dastane;

4 Lt Gen JP Nehra;

5 Lt Gen Philip Campose;

6 Lt Gen AS Chabbewal; and

7 Lt Gen Ashok Singh.

4. The service profiles of the seven officers were forwarded together with the recommendation of the COAS that the third respondent be appointed as GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and the fourth respondent be appointed as GOC-in-C, Western Command. The COAS certified that no administrative, disciplinary or vigilance proceedings were pending or contemplated against them.

5. A Court of Inquiry was convened on the directions of the Army Commander, Eastern Command to investigate certain incidents which occurred at Dimapur, involving army personnel and civilians on 20-21 December 2011. On 18 April 2012, the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry were forwarded to Army Headquarters.

6. The proposal for the appointment of the third respondent as Army Commander was processed on 2 May 2012 in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and was endorsed by the Defence Minister on 5 May 2012. The proposal for the appointment of third respondent as Army Commander of the Eastern Command was forwarded to the Cabinet Secretary for approval by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). On 8 May 2012, the proposal in respect of the fourth respondent for appointment as Army Commander of the Western Command was forwarded.

7. On 19 May 2012, a notice to show cause was issued by the COAS to the third respondent. A discipline and vigilance (DV) ban was imposed.

8. On 24 May 2012, when the proposal was under examination with the Cabinet Secretariat, an intimation was issued by the Army Headquarters to the Ministry of Defence in regard to the imposition of a Type A discipline and vigilance ban on the third respondent. Accordingly, on 29 May 2012, the Defence Minister decided to recommend to the ACC that the proposal for the appointment of the third respondent be kept on hold until further inpu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 225

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.LT GEN RAVI DASTANE, AVSM, VSM – APPELLANT(S)VersusUNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)CIVIL APPEAL NO 9721 OF 2014Decided on : 01-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTSelection of Lieutenant General as Army Commander – Seniority may be a relevant consideration – Appointing authority is best suited to determine who among officers in rank of Lieutenant General is suited for appointment against a vacancy.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
LT GEN RAVI DASTANE, AVSM, VSM – APPELLANT(S)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO 9721 OF 2014
Decided on : 01-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Selection of Lieutenant General as Army Commander – Seniority may be a relevant consideration – Appointing authority is best suited to determine who among officers in rank of Lieutenant General is suited for appointment against a vacancy.