K. Ramamoorthy, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner joined the Indian Army in the rank of Lieutinent and he was working on the date of filing of the writ petition as Lt. Col. He has now sought the following reliefs:

A) Quashing the impugned order of Government of India vide their letter No. 36501/23/ac/89/ms/compl/3271/d (MS) dated 9th August, 1996 as well as any uncommunicated adverse/advisory/remarks in the Confidential Report by IO/ro/sro/or Head of the Department; and b) Issue writ of Mandamus to hold fresh selection Board for promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. /col.

( 2 ) IN April 1992, the petitioner made a statutory complaint praying for setting aside the following ACRs:

A) The complete ACR of 1985-86 including the assessment of IO, RO, SRO and NSRO (if any ). b) The complete ICR for the period o1 Jun 86 to 22 Sep 86 including the assessment of the RO, SRO and NSRO (if any ).

( 3 ) BY an order dated 9th August 1996 that was rejected by the Government of India. In para 6 of the writ petition the petitioner would state:

THAT the petitioner having displayed his professional competence of highest order as required of an officer having earned his well deserved confidential reports from his Commanding Offier/formation Commanders to level of Above Average with OAP as 8, the petitioner was aggrieved to have a report Reviewed upon him by Brig. S. Vohra, Commandant 2 ARMD BDE. In contravention of para 31 to 3/5/89 (b) present RO and the Ratee were required to served together for a minimum of 75 days. Whereas on the contrary the HO and Ratee has just served for a period of 9 days only. Hence the report written by RO stands vitiated being in violation to para 31 of SAO 3. 5. 89 which is an authority on the subject of Renderi Confidential Reports on officers.

( 4 ) AFTER referring to some decision in para 12 the petitioner would state:

THAT the petitioner is qualified in all respect and also entitled for further promotions as enshrined in Army Act, 1950. Army Rules, 1954 and Regulations for the Army (Dandr) Revised Edition 1987. He suffers no wrong. His ACRs are above average from the Commanding Officer barring Lt. Col. PJS Sandhu and RO Brig. S. Vohra from the time of his commissioning to his best of knowledge however, any uncommunicated remark may be of adverse/advisory would stand vitiated in the light of Army HQ letter No. 32301/34/p/ms-4 coord. dated 21 Aug 89, attached as Annexure-`a to the petition, as the petitioner was never informed of such weakness, if he had any. Apart, without seeing the work or meeting the officer, personally and awarding/ granting less figurative marks as well as corresponding pen picture would tantamount to harm the officer due to extraneous influence, thus this act be treated as personal and legislative bias. In ground (A) the petitioner would submit: Because the petitioner is entitled to setting aside of ACRs pertaining to years (i) From 01 Jan 1980 to 31 May 1981, (ii) from 01 Jan 1981 to 31 May 1982 (iii) from 01 Jan 1982 to 14 Nov 1982 as well as any uncommunicated adverse/advisory remarks by the IO/ro/sho/nsro or Head of the Deptt. as enshrined in Rendition of Confidential Reports for officer, SRO 3. 5. 89.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner his rights under Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution have been infringed.

( 6 ) IN the counter filed by the respondents, the respondents have given structure of the Indian Army and how the gradation is done and the components taken into account for assessing the suitability of an officer for promotion. In para (b) of the background facts it is stated:

IN the case of the petitioner he has been given the following considerations for promotion from Maj to Lt. Col by Mo. 4 Selection Board: 355. htm he has thus been considered by three different Selection Boards on three different occasions (when even his identity was not known to Board Members) and has not been found fit for promotion to selection rank of Lt. Col. on the basis of his own overall profile and batch merit. His v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document