Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Lt. Col. NK Ghai (Retd.), was commissioned into the Territorial Army on 14 March 1978 and promoted to Selection Grade Lieutenant Colonel with effect from 21 March 1996. He was considered for promotion to Colonel by No. 3 Selection Board on five occasions between 2000 and 2003 but was not empanelled, receiving grading 'Z' (unfit for promotion) each time. He filed multiple statutory and non-statutory complaints against ACRs and non-empanelment, some of which were rejected. A writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, which dismissed it on 2 November 2017. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The main legal issue was whether the appellant was entitled to reconsideration of his grading by the COAS, given that respondent No. 2, who also received 'Z' in June 2001, had his grading upgraded to 'B' by the COAS. The appellant argued that he had been victimized and that his ACRs were above average. The respondents contended that the COAS had the power to modify Selection Board recommendations under Paragraph 108(d) and (e) of the Defence Services Regulations for the Army, 1987. The Supreme Court examined the sealed proceedings of the Selection Boards and found that in June 2001, the appellant was graded 'Z' while respondent No. 2 was initially graded 'Z' but later upgraded by the COAS. The Court held that since the COAS reconsidered respondent No. 2's case, the appellant's case ought to have been considered similarly. The Court directed the COAS to reconsider the appellant's grading in the June 2001 selection process within three months, and if upgraded, to consider notional promotion with consequential benefits. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Territorial Army - Grading 'Z' - Reconsideration by COAS - The appellant, a Lieutenant Colonel in Territorial Army, was graded 'Z' (unfit for promotion) by No. 3 Selection Board in June 2001, while respondent No. 2 was initially graded 'Z' but later upgraded to 'B' by COAS. The Supreme Court held that since COAS reconsidered respondent No. 2's case, the appellant's case for upgradation ought to have been considered. Directed COAS to reconsider appellant's grading within three months. (Paras 10-12) B) Service Law - Defence Services Regulations - Paragraph 108(d) and (e) - Power of COAS - The assessment of Selection Board is recommendatory and becomes binding only after approval by COAS. COAS has inherent power to modify, review, approve with variations, or repeal recommendations. (Para 8) C) Service Law - Territorial Army Regulations 1948 - Paragraph 38(c) - Eligibility for Promotion - Territorial Army officers are eligible for promotion by selection to substantive rank of Colonel against specific vacancies after completion of 22 years of service. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a Territorial Army officer, was entitled to reconsideration of his grading 'Z' by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) when a similarly placed officer (respondent No. 2) was granted such reconsideration.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Directed COAS to reconsider appellant's grading from 'Z' in the June 2001 selection process within three months. If upgraded, notional promotion and consequential benefits to be considered. Impugned judgment confirmed with this modification.
Law Points
- Promotion by selection
- Grading 'Z' meaning unfit for promotion
- Power of COAS to modify Selection Board recommendations
- Territorial Army Regulations 1948 Paragraph 38(c)
- Defence Services Regulations for the Army 1987 Paragraph 108(d) and (e)
