Case Note & Summary
The case involves Lieutenant General Ravi Dastane challenging the appointments of Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh and Lieutenant General Sanjiv Chachra as Army Commanders. The dispute arose when a proposal for filling two Army Commander vacancies was initiated in March 2012. The Chief of Army Staff shortlisted seven eligible Lieutenant Generals, including the appellant and the respondents, and recommended the third and fourth respondents based on their service profiles. A Court of Inquiry was convened regarding incidents at Dimapur, leading to a Type A discipline and vigilance ban on the third respondent on 19 May 2012. The ban was lifted on 7 June 2012, and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved the appointments on 15 June 2012. The appellant submitted representations and a statutory complaint, which were rejected. He then filed an Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which dismissed it, holding that the appointments were based on a comparative study of merit and no prejudice was caused. The Supreme Court considered the submissions that the appointments should have been based on selection rather than seniority, that the policy required two names per vacancy, and that the ACC was deprived of choice. The Court upheld the AFT's decision, noting that the COAS examined the service profiles of all seven officers and recommended based on merit, the DV ban was lifted before approval, and the procedure was duly followed. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant and respondents had since retired.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Army Commander Appointment - Selection Process - Appointment of Army Commanders is by selection based on comparative merit, not seniority alone - The Chief of Army Staff examined service profiles of seven eligible officers and recommended two based on merit - The Ministry of Defence and Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved the appointments - Held that the procedure was duly followed and no prejudice was caused to the appellant (Paras 3-12, 15-16). B) Service Law - Discipline and Vigilance Ban - Effect on Appointment - A Type A DV ban imposed on the third respondent was lifted before the ACC approval - The ban did not create a vested right for the appellant to be appointed in the interim - Held that the appointment was valid as the ban was no longer in effect at the time of approval (Paras 7-9, 16). C) Service Law - Statutory Complaint - Rejection - The appellant's statutory complaint was rejected by the Union government after consideration - The AFT upheld the rejection, finding no procedural irregularity - Held that the decision was based on a comparative study of merit and no prejudice was caused (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointments of Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh and Lieutenant General Sanjiv Chachra as Army Commanders were valid, considering the procedure for selection based on merit and the impact of a discipline and vigilance ban on the third respondent
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Court found that the selection process was based on comparative merit, the DV ban was lifted before ACC approval, and no prejudice was caused to the appellant. The appeal was rendered infructuous as the appellant and respondents had retired.
Law Points
- Appointment of Army Commanders is by selection
- not seniority
- comparative merit evaluation is essential
- ACC has final authority
- DV ban does not create vested right for next senior officer
- policy circulars dated 20 October 1986
- 18 November 1996
- and 16 October 1992 govern eligibility
- Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules 1961 apply
