2026 Supreme(Del) 853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ.
 
LT COL Bharat Singh, Sena Medal – Petitioner 
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 14626 of 2024 & CM APPL. 55900 of 2025
Decided On : 16-05-2026
 

Writ jurisdiction under the Constitution maintains oversight regarding administrative service matters, but courts must exercise restraint, refusing to re-appreciate expert performance evaluations or confidential reports unless there is clear evidence of jurisdictional error, mala fides, or procedural illegality that violates fundamental service principles.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Sections 30 and 31 - Challenge against orders of Tribunal - Maintainability of writ petition - Writ jurisdiction is not restricted by the appellate framework of the Tribunal for matters involving personal grievances rather than points of law of general public importance - However, judicial review remains limited to examining the decision-making process for jurisdictional errors, illegality, or perversity - (Paras 28, 29, 31).

(B) Service Law - Confidential Reports - Performance evaluation and promotion - Confidential Reports and suitability for promotion fall within the domain of expert administrative bodies - Courts must exercise judicial restraint and refrain from interfering with internal service assessments absent clear evidence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of principles of natural justice - An officer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of personal particulars in service records upon authentication - (Paras 33, 37, 38, 49).

(C) Administrative Law - Procedural irregularities - Technical discrepancies in reports do not automatically render them invalid where the established reporting procedure was followed and no substantial prejudice is demonstrated - Disputed service particulars previously endorsed by the person concerned cannot be revisited after promotion non-empanelment - (Paras 44, 45).

Facts of the case:
An officer challenged multiple confidential reports and his resulting non-empanelment for promotion, alleging improper designation entries, signatures obtained while on leave, and the invalidity of reports initiated without specific endorsements. The tribunal dismissed the challenge, ruling that the officer had failed to contests these particulars at the time of signing and that the evaluation process complied with established policy.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the tribunal's order, confirming that the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and that the findings were based on sufficient material. The court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is not intended to function as an appeal for re-appreciating factual findings or the merit of performance ratings provided by expert authorities.

Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the statutory appellate route and whether confidential reports can be set aside based on technical procedural arguments and disputed service information previously verified by the ratee.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review of administrative decisions, particularly regarding service performance records and internal promotions, is restricted to identifying errors of jurisdiction or manifest perversity. Courts will not substitute their own assessment for that of expert authorities, and individuals are precluded from challenging service data that they have previously acknowledged as correct.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction and scope of the challenge against the armed forces tribunal order. (Para 1 , 2 , 10)
2. petitioner's contention regarding technical invalidity of confidential reports (crs). (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. respondent's defense on cr validity and maintainability objection. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. maintainability of high court writ jurisdiction over armed forces tribunal orders. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. scope of judicial review in military performance assessment is limited. (Para 32 , 33 , 48 , 49)
6. factual findings regarding the validity of crs and selection board processes. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
7. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 50)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 26.07.2024, passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, (hereinafter “Tribunal”), whereby the OA No. 769/2023, filed by the Petitioner challenging his Confidential Reports (“CRs”) for the periods 01.01.2010 to 22.07.2010, 23.07.2010 to 31.12.2010 and 20.06.2011 to 31.12.2011, was dismissed.

2. Succinctly stated, the Petitioner is an officer of the Indian Army presently holding the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He was commissioned in the Army on 08.12.2001.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was posted at 874 AT Bn, Udhampur (J&K) from 05.05.2009 to 07.06.2011. Two CRs of the year 2010 were initiated incorrectly reflecting him as Company Commander (Coy. Commander), when the post could have been held only by a Lt. Col/Col, whereas he was holding the rank of a Major. Further, as per Unit Officers Strength Report - IAFF-3008, the officers senior to him in rank and service were incorrectly reflected as serving under his command. Additionally, he was attending a pre-staff course during the period 14.02.2010 to 11.04.2010 and in any case he could not have taken over the appointment of Company Commander, which renders the two CRs of 2010 technically invalid.

4. It is further the Petitioner’s case that when his CR for the period from 20.06.2011 to 31.12.2011 fell due, he had not completed mandatory physical service of 90 days under his Initiating Officer (“IO”) and Reviewing Officer (“RO”). Though the CR was sent to SRO, who endorsed the remark of “inadequate knowledge”, the same resulted in the CR being a “One Man Report”, rendering the same technically invalid.

5. On 20.06.2015 and 22.06.2015, the Petitioner preferred two Non-Statutory Complaint against the CR - 20.06.2011 to 31.12.2011 and CR - 01.01.2014 to 18.06.2014, respectively. Vide orders dated 29.01.2016 and 25.03.2016, the above complaints were disposed of while granting the Petitioner, partial relief of expunction of certain figurative assessment and remarks of the RO.

6. In October 2018, the Petitioner was considered by SB-No. 3 Board (Fresh) for promotion to the rank of Colonel, however, he was not empanelled. According to him, the said non-empanelment is a direct consequence of inclusion of certain technically invalid CRs in his profile.

7. The Non-Statutory Complaint dated 13.12.2018, challenging his non-empanelment and the technical validity of the CRs for the period from 01.01.2010 to 22.07.2010, 23.07.2010 to 31.12.2010, 20.06.2011 to 31.12.2011, 01.01.2012 to 30.05.2012 and the assessment of RO in the CR for the period 01.01.2014 to 18.06.2014, was disposed by the Competent Authority vide order dated 04.10.2019, and he was granted partial relief of re-consideration as Special Review (Fresh) - 2019.

8. He preferred another Non-Statutory Complaint and, in the interim, he was again considered and not selected/empanelled in SB-3 (First Review) in March-April 2020 as well as SB-3 (Final Review) in October 2020. Ultimately, his Complaint was finally disposed and rejected vide Order dated 26.03.2021.

9. Aggrieved thereby

Click Here to Read the rest of this document