Case Note & Summary
The First Respondent, a Brigadier in the Indian Army, was appointed as Defence Attaché/Military Attaché in the USA in 1996. Before joining, he signed an Adverse Career Certificate accepting potential adverse effects on his career. During his tenure, the Chief of Army Staff approved a change in assessment of officers by dispensing with figurative assessment for Defence Attachés/Military Attachés via an office order dated 07.04.1998, retaining only pen-picture assessment. After returning to India, the First Respondent sought a 'look' for the National Defence College (NDC) 2000 course but was not considered. He complained about the dispensation of figurative assessment, but was informed it was re-introduced prospectively from 2000. He was considered for promotion to Major General but not empanelled due to absence of NDC weightage. His non-statutory complaint was rejected, and he was denied consideration for NDC 2001. He filed a statutory complaint regarding supersession, which was rejected. Subsequently, a Special Selection Board found him fit for promotion to Major General, and he was promoted. However, he was not empanelled for Lieutenant General. He filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, directing the appellants to change the First Respondent's profile and reconsider his claim for promotion to Lieutenant General, with specific directions regarding the NDC aspect and expunction of unauthorized figurative assessments. The Division Bench affirmed and allowed the First Respondent's appeal, further holding that the posting as Defence Attaché should have been treated as Extra-Regimental Employment and that the refusal of a first look for NDC was erroneous. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's directions, agreeing that the profile of the First Respondent warranted a change due to the change in assessment method and unauthorized figurative assessments. The court left open the question of whether non-furnishing of comments on statutory complaints violates natural justice, as the appellant did not press the point. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Confidential Reports - Change in Assessment Method - Dispensation of figurative assessment for Defence Attachés/Military Attachés by office order dated 07.04.1998, while retaining pen-picture, was held to have prejudiced the officer's career prospects as it was re-introduced prospectively from 01.01.2000. The court held that the officer's profile warranted a change due to the change in assessment method (Paras 10-12). B) Service Law - Confidential Reports - Unauthorized Figurative Assessment - GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and COAS made figurative assessments of the officer when posted as ADG, Assam Rifles, contrary to policy order dated 19.12.2002 which restricted reporting officers to pen-picture only. The court held such assessments were without jurisdiction and liable to be expunged (Paras 11-12). C) Service Law - Natural Justice - Non-furnishing of Comments - The learned Single Judge found that vital documents, namely comments of Army authorities on statutory complaints, were not supplied to the officer, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court left this question open as the appellant did not press the point (Para 12). D) Service Law - Promotion - NDC Nomination - The officer was denied a 'look' for NDC course due to change in assessment method. The High Court directed that the NDC aspect not be considered by the Special Selection Board as the second mandatory look was illegally denied. The Supreme Court affirmed this direction (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the change in method of assessment of confidential reports and unauthorized figurative assessment by reporting officers vitiated the officer's profile and promotion prospects, and whether the officer was entitled to a change in profile and reconsideration for promotion.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench. The court agreed that the profile of the First Respondent warranted a change and that the unauthorized figurative assessments were without jurisdiction. The court left open the question of natural justice regarding non-furnishing of comments.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Confidential report assessment
- Figurative assessment
- Pen-picture assessment
- Extra-Regimental Employment
- Promotion consideration
- NDC nomination
