Back
1995 Supreme(MP) 253
1995 JLJ 259
S.K. Dubey, J.
Gurdip Singh (Lt. Col.) v. Union of India and another
M.P. No. 712 of 1991; Decided on 16.2.1995.
Mohan Singh for petitioner; Smt. Indira Nair for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Civil Services -- promotion -- is a normal incidence of service -- it is made for increasing the efficiency of public service.
The promotion is a normal incidence of service. A provision for promotion is made for increasing the efficiency of public service while stagnation reduces the efficiency and makes the service ineffective. It is often said and indeed adroitly an organisation public or private does not ‘hire a hand‘ but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. AIR 1989 SC 1972 followed. [Para 8
(2) Regulations for the Army, 1962 -- Reg. 60 -- promotion of defence personnel -- considerations which apply to other Government servants do not apply. AIR 1989 SC 1393 followed. [para 9
(3) Regulations for the Army, 1962 -- Reg. 60 -- promotion to the rank of colonel-- is by way of selection as it is a selection post. [Para 10
(4) Regulations for the Army 1962 -- provisions under -- are merely executive instructions as not published in official Gazette -- yet have statutory force and are binding. AIR 1987 SC 212 and AIR 1981 SC 947 followed. [Para 12
(5) Regulations for the Army, 1962 -- Reg. 69 -- amendment of criteria for promotion of officer -- amendment not inconsistent with this regulation -- restriction of three chances of review for promotion to the selection rank right from Lt. Col. is equally applicable to all.
As amended criteria of considering the case of an officer restricting the case of an officer by the selection cannot be said to be inconsistent or contrary to Regulation 69 which is applied without any exception uniformally and equally to all in the Army Services, being a policy matter and is supplemental and in amplification to Regulation 69 with due regard to the interest of Army Services. [Para 13
Restricting the consideration of three chances of promotion to the selection rank right from Lt. Cot. is known to all which is applicable equally to all and does not infringe any constitutional or statutory provisions, therefore, no judicial review can be made as it is well settled that the ‘Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in the matters of policy. 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 473 followed. [Para 15
(6) Natural Justice -- no statutory provision to record reasons for rejecting representation of Government employee -- authority is not required to record such reasons -- no principles of natural justice infringed. (1991) 3 SCC 38 followed. [Para 17
¼1½ flfoy lsok && izkséfr && lsok dk lkekU; vkiru gS && og yksd lsok dh dk;Zdq‘kyrk esa o`f) djus ds fy, dh tkrh gSA
izkséfr lsok dk lkekU; vkiru gSA izkséfr dh O;oLFkk yksd lsok dh dk;Zdq‘kyrk esa o`f) djus ds fy, dh xbZ gS tcfd izxfrjks/k ls dk;Zdq‘kyrk de gks tkrh gS rFkk lsok izHkkoghu gks tkrh gSA ;g cgq/kk] rFkk prqjrk ls] dgk x;k gS fd yksd vFkok izkbosV laxBu fdlh O;fDr dks ek= HkkMs+ ij ugha j[krk gS] vfirq ,d laiw.kZ O;fDr dks fu;qDr vFkok fu;ksftr djrk gSA fdlh laxBu }kjk dksbZ O;fDr ek= fdlh dk;Z ds fy, HkrhZ ugha fd;k tkrk vfirq laiw.kZ dSfj;j ds fy, fd;k tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1972 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼2½ lsuk ds fy, fofu;e] 1962 && fofu- 60 && j{kk dkfeZd dh izkséfr && vU; ljdkh lsod dks ykxw gksus okyh ckrsa ykxw ugha gksrhA , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1393 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼3½ lsuk ds fy, fofu;e] 1962 && fofu- 60 && duZy ds jSad ij izkséfr & p;u ls gksrh gS D;ksafd ;g p;u in gSA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼4½ lsuk ds fy, fofu;e] 1962 && ds v/khu mica/k & jkti= esa izdkf‘kr u gksus ds dkj.k ek= dk;Zikyd vuqns‘k gS && rFkkfi mUgsa dkuwuh cy izkIr gS rFkk og vkc)dj gSA , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 212 rFkk , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 947 vulqfjrA ¿ iSjk 12À
¼5½ lsuk ds fy, fofu;e] 1962 && fofu- 69 && vf/kdkjh dh iznkséfr ds fuy, ekunaMksa dk la‘kks/ku && la‘kks/ku bl fofu;e ds vlaxr ugha && ysf¶VusaV duZy ls p;u jSad rd ij izkséfr ds fy, iqufoZyksdu ds rhu voljksa dk fucZa/ku lHkh dks leku rkSj ij ykxw gksrk gSA
uhfr dk fo"k; gksus ls] vf/kdkjh ds ekeys dks p;u }kjk fucZaf/kr djrs g,q vf/kdkjh es ekeys dk fopkj djus ds ;Fkkla‘kksf/kr ekunaM fofu;e 69] tks lsuk esa lHkh dks lekur% rFkk fcuk fdlh viokn ds ykxw gSa] ls vlaxr vFkok ds izfrdwy ugha dgs tk ldrsA lsuk lsok ds fgr dk lE;d~ /;ku j[krs os gq, fofu;e 69 ds izo/kZu rFkk vuqiwjd gaSA ¿ iSjk 13À
ysf¶VusV duZy ls p;u jSad rd ij izkséfr ds fy, fopkj fd, tkus ds rhu voljksa dk fucZa/ku tks lHkh dks lekur% ykxw gS lHkh dh tkudkjh esa gS rFkk mlds }kjk fdUgha lkfo/kkfud vFkok dkuwuh mica/kksa dk vfrya?ku ugha gksrkA vr% dksbZ U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd ;g lqfuf‘pr gS fd uhfr ds fo"k;ksa esa dk;Zikyd dks U;k;ky; }kjk funs‘k vFkok lykg fn;k tkuk lafo/kku es vuqKkr ugha gSA 1993 lIyh- ¼4½ ,l lh lh 473 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 15À
¼6½ uSlfxZd U;k; && ljdkjh deZpkjh dk vH;kosnu vx`ghr djus ds dkj.k vfHkfyf[kr djus dk dksbZ dkuwuh mica/k ugha && izkf/kdj.k }kjk ,sls dkj.k vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vfrya?ku ugha gqvkA ¼1993½ 3 ,l lh lh 38 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 17À
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was commissioned on 30th June, 1963 in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (EME) of the Army after completion of the officers' training was allotted Indian Commission No. IC-14847 P, and was promoted up to the rank of Lt. Col. in June, 1988, has challenged his reduction in seniority, brought it with the batch of 1965 sticking to the original seniority, that is, date of commission 30th June 1963 and has questioned the ACR for the year 1984-85 and for grant of promotion to the rank of Colonel.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition are these:
Petitioner after his commission in the Army, carried out and discharged various duties as EME Officer right from the rank of 2nd Lt. from September, 1963 to March 1965; Captain April, 1965 to January 1966; Captain March 1968 to December 1969; Major January 1970 to November 1983 and Lt. Col., December 1983 to the date. The record of service of the petitioner is unblemis, and was awarded one War Star and 7 Medals in addition to an award for publishing technical paper in EME Year Book in 1982. The petitioner got all the promotions upto the rank of Major but for the promotion of Acting rank of Lt. Col. The petitioner was placed junior by his coursemates by one and half year of his original seniority contrary to the paragraph 68 of the Regulations for the Army, 1962. On lodging a statutory appeal before the Union of India, the petitioner acquired the promotion of Acting Lt. Col. The petitioner's Initiative Officer Brigadier Amarjeet Singh (IO) was having an eye on the petitioner. Petitioner apprehended that his service career will be ruined by writing adverse ACR, hence, the petitioner applied for his posting out from his unit; but that was not done. The petitioner was degraded in the ACR for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86 which were assessed by Brigadier Amarjeet Singh. The ACRs were not communicated to the petitioner. Having come to know about the entry in ACRs the petitioner lodged a statutory complaint to the Government of India, vide petition dated 5.7.1986 (Annexure-A). The Government of India, vide order dated 29.4.1987 (Annexure-B) set aside the ACR for the year 1985-86, but withheld the ACR for the year 1984-85. The petitioner avers that both the ACRs were written by the same IO, who was biased, entry in ACR of 1984-85 also ought to have been set aside, but, that was not done which affected the selection of the petitioner for the rank of Acting Colonel, the petitioner was superseded by Army Headquarter. The reasons for the supersession were not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner also suspects that the reason for supersession was the interim ACR assessed by IO Brigadier M.R. Kochar in the line of Brigadier Amarjeet Singh, as Brigadier M.R. Kochar was having knowledge of statutory complaint submitted by the petitioner against his predecessor. Therefore, he was also prejudiced. The petitioner had a satisfactory record of service, but because of the uncommunicated ACR, interim ACR and the bias of the two IOs, the petitioner was superseded to 200 Juniors to him who were promoted. The petitioner made statutory complaint (Annexure-D) again on 25th May, 1988 against his supersession which was rejected vide order dated 29th September, 1989 (Annexure-8) whereby the petitioner was communicated that the petitioner's final review for the promotion to the rank of Acting Colonel on the basis of the ACR have been carried out by the 3 Selection Board, and on over all performance and the record of service the petitioner was not considered for the promotion as the petitioner was not found fit for 3 consecutive review and therefore, the petitioner was no longer eligible for further consideration. The petitioner also avers that with effect from January, 1990 ACRs are being shown to the petitioner where is the petitioner is getting above-average report every year. Therefore, in view of the paragr
