JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta. J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 28.3.1995 delivered in CW 1985/94 dismissing the appellant's writ petition on 28.3.1995. When the appeal came up for admission it was submitted by the appellant that certain points argued by him before the learned single Judge had not been dealt with in his judgment. The appeal was adjourned sine die with liberty reserved to the appellant to seek review of the judgment and thereafter apply for revival of the appeal. Review application No.3344/95 preferred by the appellant was dismissed on 18.4.1996, whereafter the appellant sought revival of the instant appeal. After show cause the appellant and counsel for the respondents were heard.

2. The appellant was approved for promotion to the select rank of Lt. Colonel by No.4 Selection Board held in March 1989 for which the cut off Annual Confidential Report (for short 'ACR') was 6/88. Feeling aggrieved, when he was not detailed for Senior Command Course in 1990 along with batch mates a non-statutory complaint was submitted by him on 3.12.1990, which also included his complaint against ACR for 6/88. For the said course, according to the appellant, officers are detailed on merits, assessed from over all average performance for the last five ACRs. The appellant alleged that he had strained relationship with the initiating officer, who had initiated his ACR of 5/89 and ICR 9/89, which might have been taken into account for the purpose of determining his suitability for the Course. The complaint was partially allowed by an order passed by the Chief of Army Staff, conveyed to the appellant through communication dated 30.1.1992, which stated that after a careful and sympathetic consideration of all aspects, as warranted by merits of the case and viewing it against the background of the overall performance and profile of the officer, the Chief of the Army Staff has directed that a complete assessment by Col. D.K. Nundy (IO) for ACR 5/89 and ICR 9/89 be set aside on the grounds of subjectivity. Subject to this order, the appellant's remaining complaint was rejected. Simultaneously the appellant was also conveyed the following remarks made by the Chief of Army Staff while disposing of his complaint:

"I do not feel the behaviour of this officer is an officer like."

3. Before the aforementioned decision was taken, the appellant was duly considered for promotion to the higher rank of Colonel in September, 1991 with cut off ACR 1990-91 in which he was declared unfit. As a result of partial acceptance of the complaint, appellant's case for promotion for the rank of Colonel was again considered in August, 1992 as a special review with cut off ACR of 1990-91 but was declared unfit. Result was declared on 30.12.1992. Feeling aggrieved the appellant submitted a statutory complaint on 4.1.1993. The main points taken in this complaint were that he had strong apprehension of his supersession on account of the adverse subjective rating/remarks given in ACR 6/86 and 6/88. In other words, grievance made in the complaint was that based on the partial acceptance of the non-statutory complaint dated 3.12.1990 the Chief of the Army Staff ought to have set aside' complete assessment of ACR 5/89 and ICR 9/89. It was stated that Brig. K.C. Dhingra the Reviewing Officer of ACR 5/89 had no adequate opportunity of judging him and had also expressed apprehension of appraisal by Brig. Dhingra largely based on the expunged report of Col.D.K. Nandy or in any case on the basis of the adverse information about the personal qualities and performance conveyed to the reviewing officer by Col. D.K. Nandi. In all fairness it was prayed that complete ACR 6/89 be set aside. He also made grievances against the remarks recorded by the Chief of the Army Staff, while disposing of his complaint dated 3.12.1990 The Central Government, after persual of the relevant record rejected the statutor