( 1 ) THE writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

" (A) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Major General in the Army Service Corps with effect from 1. 5. 97, when a vacancy arose therein; (b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records of Selections Boards held on 1. 11. 96 and 11. 7. 97 for promotion to the post of Major General in the Army Service Corps along with the notings of the Ministry of Defence and set aside the results of the Selection Board held on 1. 11. 96 and 11. 7. 97. (e) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to investigate/ inquire into the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No. 4 and thereafter take appropriate disciplinary action against Respondent No. 4. (d) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the appointment of respondent Nos. 8 as Major Generals in the Army Service Corp. "

( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner to put it tersely is: Selection Board which met on 31. 10. 1986 find him fit for promotion as Major General but the Government of India rejected the assessment made by the Selection Board. In the meeting held by the No. I Selection Board on 10 and 11. 4. 1997 he was again found fit but the Government of India rejected the assessment made by the Selection Board this time also. According to the petitioner, the Government of India had not acted in accordance with law in making the decision.

( 3 ) A few facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating the contentions of the parties have to be noticed. On 1. 4. 1993 the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Brigadier and was posted as Commandant, Army School of Mechanical Transport. The petitioner was selected for a one year Intensive Course at the National Defence College, Delhi, in December, 1995 the petitioner was posted as Deputy Director, Supplies and Transport, 3 Corps, Transport, 99 APO. The predecessor of the petitioner was one Brig. C. P. Tiwari (now he is Major General ). The said Mr. C. P. Tiwari had apprised the petitioner that respondent No. 4 had collected a sum of Rs. 24,000. 00 on two occasions from him as Brig. from the Regimental Funds of ASC Units of 3 Corps for the maintenance of the official residence of the 4th respondent. It is called ASC house. The sum of Rs. 24,000. 00 was sent in October and November, 1995 for the specific purpose of "upkeep and maintenance of ASC house in Delhi". The petitioner did not relish the way in which the money was collected by the 4th respondent and that was the cause for misunderstanding between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had taken it amiss is clear from the events that had followed. On 4. 3. 1996 Major General N. J. Chinoy, ASC, Eastern Command directed the petitioner to forward his comments on a HQ ARTC paper study setting combat superiority . The petitioner had a discussion in this behalf that Major General Krishan Pal, VSM, Chief of Staff of Corps and thereupon sent his comments on 22. 3. 1996. They were forwarded to the 4th respondent. On 30. 4. 1996 the 4th respondent advised the performance counselling of the petitioner marking a copy to Major General Jagdish Chander, Chairman, CSD. The same is as under:

"study setting combat Superiority Your views on the Study Setting Combat Superiority, having ref. of HQ ARTRAC letterno733130/otd/cp dated l7 Jan96 have been recd. by us through MGASC Eastern Comd. On perusal of the contents of your views on the subject it is obs that this major issue has been treated rather casually by you.

2. The study had dealt with the aspect of examining the validity of the existing norm of 3:1 combat superiority ratio. In the study it was proposed to incl aspects of gloss sp, which if sound