B. N. Chaturvedi, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was commissioned on June 11,1977, as 2nd Lieutenant in Artillery Regiment of Indian Army. In due course, he rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel by December, 1994. On his turn for further promotion to the rank of Colonel, he was by-passed by virtue of being not approved by the selection Board. A non-statutory complaint to the respondent No. 2 against his supersession, filed by the petitioner on May 12, 1997, was rejected by an order dated June 6, 1997. He, on July 28, 1997, made a statutory complaint to respondent No. 1 but the same was also rejected vide order dated 12. 11. 1997. This was followed by another statutory complaint dated 11th February/31st march, 1998 to respondent No. 1 impugning the ACR for the period 6/92-4/93. The respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 14. 5. 1998 declared the same as untenable. By his letter dated 14. 5. 1998, the petitioner requested respondent no. 2 for reconsideration of his aforesaid statutory complaint. He, however, did not receive any response to such a request.

( 2 ) SETTING out background facts, the respondents, in their counter, state that promotion in the Army up to the rank of Major are by time scale and from major to Lt. Colonel and above are through Selection Board. The officers of a particular batch are considered together with same cut-off ACR and inputs and on the basis of individual profile and batch merit and, accordingly, approved/ not approved by the Selection Board. In terms of promotion policy, an officer is entitled to three considerations only for promotion to the selection rank, i. e. , from Major to Lt. Colonel and above, as fresh case, first review case and final review case. Unlike a fresh case, on being approved as a first review or final review case, one would lose his seniority vis-a-vis his original batch. On being unsuccessful on three considerations, the officer is deemed finally superseded.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, state the respondents, was considered as a fresh case by no. 3 Selection Board in December, 1996 but was rejected with cut-off ACR, september, 1995 to May, 1996. Thereafter, during December, 1997 with cut-off acr June, 1996 to March, 1997, he was considered as first review case of 1997 batch by another Selection Board but again failed to make the grade. A number of factors such as wars/operation reports, course reports, ACR performance in command and staff, honours, awards and disciplinary background account for consideration by the Selection Boards. Selection/rejection, it is pleaded, is based upon overall profile of an officer vis-a-vis his comparative batch merit. On his overall profile compared to his batch merit, according to the respondents, the petitioner missed the grade, hence, not approved by the two distinct selection Boards.

( 4 ) THE petitioner recounts his ACR for the period 6/92-4/93 as stumbling block in his non-selection to the rank of Colonel. Low figurative assessment of his mandatory qualities/demonstrated performance is, according to him, attributable to mala fide and bias on the part of the Reviewing Officer, Brig. P. Subramanyam. He dishes out more than one reason for alleged mala fide and bias, which would be taken note of individually while examining the validity part of the grounds of challenge. The petitioner feels that he would make the grade for promotion to the rank of Colonel if the impugned ACR is left out of consideration. He has, therefore, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the same. Alleged short-shrift treatment to his non-statutory/statutory complaint at the hands of respondents 1 and 2, in view of dismissal thereof by a non-speaking order, is another point of grievance which the petitioner seeks to canvass to make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. It is complained that non-statutory/statutory complaints were dealt with perfunctorily in mechanical fashion without application of mind.

( 5 ) THE prayers in the writ petition,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document