CRUX:
Union of India & Anr vs Major Bahadur Singh- In the present case, LPA has filed against the order passed by HC where it dismissed the writ petition because there was no challenge in the writ petition to the effect as there were no parameters for the assessment and same was alleged and same was alleged to be erroneous.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
22/11/2005
JUDGE:
Justice Arijit Pasayat& C.K. Thakker
PARTIES:
Union of India (Pentitioner)
Major Bahadur Singh (Respondent)
SUMMARY
.In the present case, LPA has filed against the order passed by HC where it dismissed the writ petition because there was no challenge in the writ petition to the effect as there were no parameters for the assessment and same was alleged and same was alleged to be erroneous.
Brief
The writ petition was dismissed by the Single judge bench of HC praying to issue a writ of mandamus to the appellant to promote him or he be evaluated afresh by the Selection Board and for setting aside ACRs. The respondent aggrieved by the dismissal order filed LPA before the High Court. The appellants filed a counter-affidavit in the said LPA. After listening to both the parties, the court order remittance of the matter to HC for fresh consideration and appeal stand disposed of.
Background Facts
- They regarded the respondent for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel by Selection Boards in the year August 1995, 1996, and November 1996. However, he was not impaneled based on his overall profile and batch of merit.
- The respondent filed a statutory complaint on October 3, 1995, to set aside the ACRs of 1988-89 and 1989-90. He informed that the then starting officer resented the amalgamation of Food Inspection Cadre officers of ASC mainstream and detested the DFRL trained officers.
- The complaint made was rejected on September 27, 1996. So, a subsequent complaint was initiated by the respondent, which was also rejected on October 17, 1996.
- Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court prayed it to issue a writ of mandamus to the appellant to promote him or he be evaluated afresh by the Selection Board and for setting aside ACRs.
- However, the writ petition was dismissed by the Single judge bench of HC by order dated April 29, 1997.
- The respondent aggrieved by the dismissal order filed LPA. The appellants filed a counter-affidavit in the said LPA.
Appellant’s Submission
The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted before the HC that the Court has not kept in view the current position of law. They alleged that fundamental mistake in the court's approach as it proceeded because whenever there is an allotment of marks at a figure lower than for the previous period; it was down gradation and resulted in adverse consequences and ought to have been conveyed before the same was regarded while the respondent’s suitability for promotion was being considered.
It further informed the court that the respondent was awarded seven marks in the year 1988-89 and for 1989-90 it was six marks amounted to downgrading. The HC order that there was no challenge in the writ petition to the effect as there were no parameters for the assessment and the same was alleged by the Appellant to be erroneous as the elaborate guidelines and parameters have been prescribed.
The Appellant added that High Court erred in treating un- equals to be equal and continued on the basis as if allotment of marks at a figure lower than for the previous period amounted to downgrading.
Respondent Submission
In response, learned counsel for the respondent presented that the High Court has taken the accurate view because serious results were involved and directed communication of the entry which had adverse consequences. The decrease in marks for a subsequent period is a straightforward case of adverse consequences and, therefore, it was correct by the High Court to give direction as contained in the disputed order.
Court’s Decision
The SC, after going through the records of the case, came to the inference that HC overlooked the aspect that 3 different stages show the desired improvements. It includes counselling, guidance, and the consequences. Only when an officer cannot show the desired improvement, the adverse/advisory remarks are included in his Confidential Report so that cognizance is taken for his weakness while planning his future placements. And since this aspect was overlooked, making judgment vulnerable.
The court further added that the writ- petitioner had merely made a grievance of non-communication but the High Court quashed the entry for 1989-90 which is indefensible. Therefore, High Court should re-hear the matter and consider the grievances of the writ-petitioner in the background of the parameters which exist.
They remitted the matter to HC for fresh consideration and the appeal stand disposed of.
Conclusion
In the present case, the writ petition was dismissed by the Single judge bench of HC praying to issue a writ of mandamus to the appellant to promote him or he be evaluated afresh by the Selection Board and for setting aside ACRs. The respondent aggrieved by the dismissal order filed LPA before the High Court. The appellants filed a counter-affidavit in the said LPA. After listening to both the parties, the court order remittance of the matter to HC for fresh consideration and appeal stand disposed of.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
