Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 888
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Lt. Col NK Ghai (Retd.) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4653 of 2018
Decided on : 21-05-2025
For the Appellant(s) : In person
For the Respondent(s): Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR
Promotion decisions within the military are subject to review and modification by the Chief of Army Staff, particularly where grievances about grading exist; procedural integrity is vital.
Headnote:(A) Territorial Army Regulations, 1948 - Promotion Criteria - Defence Services Regulations for the Army, 1987 - Non-empanelment for Colonel promotion - Appellant's grievances regarding non-approved ACRs and promotion discrepancies were addressed. The Tribunal upheld the decision citing no sufficient grounds. (Paras 4, 10, 11)
(B) Statutory Complaint - Competent authority role - Review powers outlined under DSR allow modifying the Selection Board recommendations; the Chief of Army Staff has the final authority. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's promotion to Colonel was denied despite multiple complaints regarding grading and ACRs. Previous grievances regarding ACRs were partially addressed, but the non-empanelment persisted.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the Tribunal's decision but instructed the Chief of Army Staff to reconsider the appellant's promotion grading for June 2001.
Issues: The validity of promotion criteria and grievances regarding non-empanelment, alongside the procedural integrity regarding ACR evaluations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the examination of grading 'Z' and the authority of the Chief of Army Staff in promotion matters was central; reconsideration was mandated to ensure fairness.
Result: Appeal partly allowed with modification requiring reconsideration of grading.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's promotion history and complaints (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding victimization and promotion policies (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of grading parameters and related policies. (Para 9) |
| 4. court's findings on grading discrepancies (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. reconsideration directive for appellant's grading (Para 12) |
| 6. modification confirmation and partial allowance of appeal (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 02nd November, 2017 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
2. On 14th March, 1978, the appellant was commissioned into the Territorial Army. On 14th March, 1991, he was promoted to Time Scale Major. With effect from 21st March, 1996, he was promoted to Selection Grade Lieutenant Colonel. He was considered by the Selection Board for promotion on five occasions between 2000 to 2003, but was not empanelled.
3. The appellant filed several statutory and non-statutory complaints. The first non-statutory complaint was against the Annual Confidential Report (for short ‘ACR’) of 1998, where redress was granted by GOC-in-C, Northern Command. Non-statutory complaint against non- empanelment for promotion to the post of Colonel in July, 2000 was treated as null and void. Statutory complaint against non-empanelment for promotion to the rank of Colonel in January, 2000 was rejected. A non-statutory complaint against ACR of October, 2000 was pending when the impugned Judgment was delivered. A non-statutory complaint filed by the appellant against non-empanelment for promotion to the rank of Colonel in December 2002 was rejected.
4. Earlier, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was disposed of by an order dated 20th February, 2006, where the respondent was directed to dispose of the statutory complaint made by the appellant by a reasoned order. Accordingly, on 28th April, 2006, the statutory complaint was rejected by a detailed speaking order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 8370 of 2006, which was later transferred to the Tribunal. There were diverse prayers made in the petition. The prayers are as under:
“(a) To promote the petitioner on completion of 22 years of meritorious Commissioned service with effect from 14.03.2000 as substantive Colonel by accepting statutory complaints dated 18.01.2002 and 07.12.2002 and as substantive Brigadier with effect from 14.03.2003 with consequential benefits including by treating in continuous service with pay and allowances.
(b) To accept TA Group Headquarter, Western Command letter dated 20.01.2003 clarifying that the petitioner was entitled to annual confidential report 2000 - 2001 from the Initiating officer on 30 days embodiment (and not from the reviewing and initiating officer) and due to the inadequate knowledge and/or non communication of same, it has to be treated as invalid.
(c) To accept petitioner's non statutory complaint dated 25.10.2002 against premature annual confidential report 2002 - 2003 initiated/ forwarded on 25.08.2002.
(d) To set aside/clarify that Reproof dated 24.06.1999 being contrary to paras 317 and 820 of Defence Service Regulation is invalid against which statutory complaint dated 18.01.2002 was filed.
(e) To lay down promotion criteria for selection grade Colonel /Brigadier including threshold limit, mainly as for Time Scale Promotions to Colonel/ Brigadier in Regular Army (being suitable for non unit command functions of Regular Army and for same reasons in non command TA, with suitable weightage for TA decoration; but no weightage for non compulsory course.
(f) To not to grant commission in Territorial Army, those already Reservists of Regular Army upto normal date of retirement and those who are key appointment holders and to decommission when they become so or fail to attend for 75 % of the training days.
(g) To conduct
