LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was correct in interfering with the discretion of the Special Promotion Board (SPB) in awarding marks for promotion.
CASE TYPE: Service Law – Armed Forces Promotion
Case Name: Union of India and Others vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly, VSM
Judgment Date: 10 November 2017
Can a promotion board’s subjective assessment be challenged if it appears inconsistent with its own past practices? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the promotion of a Major General in the Army Medical Corps. The court examined whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was right to intervene in the promotion process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice A.K. Sikri authoring the opinion.
Case Background
Major General Manomoy Ganguly, a member of the Army Medical Corps, was considered for promotion to Lieutenant General. The first Special Promotion Board (SPB) did not select him. His statutory complaint led to the expunging of a Technical Officer’s assessment in his 2014 Annual Confidential Report (ACR). This resulted in a Review SPB. However, the Review SPB also did not empanel him for promotion. The AFT then quashed the Review SPB’s decision, citing incorrect board marks. The AFT directed a fresh review, leading to this appeal by the Union of India.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 3rd March 1980 | Respondent commissioned into the Army Medical Corps (AMC). |
| 20th January 2016 | First Special Promotion Board (SPB) held; Respondent not empanelled for promotion to Lt. Gen. |
| 1st March 2016 | Respondent informed of non-empanelment by DGAFMS letter. |
| 30th June 2016 | Respondent submits statutory complaint against non-empanelment. |
| 30th January 2017 | Partial redressal granted; TO assessment in 2014 ACR expunged. |
| 21st March 2017 | Review SPB held; Respondent not empanelled for promotion. |
| 2nd September 2017 | Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) quashes Review SPB proceedings. |
| 10th November 2017 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and upholds the AFT decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondent, after not being empanelled by the first SPB, filed a statutory complaint. The complaint resulted in partial redressal, with the removal of an assessment from his 2014 ACR. A Review SPB was then convened. This board also did not empanel him. The respondent then approached the AFT. The AFT quashed the Review SPB’s decision, citing incorrect board marks. The Union of India appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The promotion policy, dated 14th January 2004 and amended on 17th May 2006, outlines the selection criteria. The criteria includes:
- Average marks of ACR: 90 marks
- Marks for qualifications (MD, DM, M.Ch.): 2 marks
- Marks for military awards: 1 mark
- Marks awarded by Board members: 2 marks
The total marks are 95. The Board members’ marks are based on the officer’s overall profile, achievements, appointments, medical category, disciplinary background, and postings. The composition of the Promotion Board (Medical) is as per the Ministry of Defence letter No. 301/DGAFMS/DG-1X/87-S/D (Med.) dated 8th February, 1988.
The relevant extract from the Promotion Policy is as follows:
“Weightage to the Members of the Board: Board Members will have a weightage of two (2) mark for selection of the officers. The Board Members may award marks not exceeding two (2) based on the overall profile of the officers, exceptional achievements, appointments held, medical category, disciplinary background, field Area-Difficult Area posting. Average of the marks awarded by all the board members present, out of the two (2), will be used to calculate the overall marks.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The AFT wrongly interfered with the Board’s discretion in awarding marks.
- Board marks are based on the overall profile, not just ACR marks.
- The AFT cannot determine how many marks should be awarded.
- The Board members, being Service Chiefs, would have objectively assessed the respondent.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The Review SPB awarded marks inconsistently with the original SPB.
- The respondent’s marks were higher than a junior officer who was promoted.
- The Board was given incorrect information about the respondent’s revised ranking.
- The Board should have given the respondent 1.70 marks, as was given to the junior officer.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Interference with Board’s Discretion |
✓ AFT undermined the discretion of Board Members. ✓ Board marks are not solely based on ACRs. ✓ AFT cannot dictate the marks to be awarded. ✓ Service Chiefs would have assessed objectively. |
✓ Review SPB was inconsistent with the original SPB. ✓ Respondent’s marks were higher than the junior officer. ✓ Incorrect information was given to the Board. ✓ Respondent should have received 1.70 marks. |
| Basis of Board Marks |
✓ Marks are based on overall profile, not just ACRs. ✓ Includes achievements, appointments, etc. |
✓ The Board did not consider the overall profile. ✓ Marks were given based on quantified marks only. |
| AFT’s Role | ✓ AFT cannot usurp the function of the Board. | ✓ AFT was correct in pointing out the inconsistency. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue was:
✓ Whether the AFT was justified in quashing the Review SPB proceedings and directing a fresh review based on the allegation of improper allotment of board marks.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the AFT was justified in quashing the Review SPB proceedings. | The Court upheld the AFT’s decision, finding that the Review SPB did not follow the same standards as the original SPB. The Court noted that the Board had awarded marks in the original SPB based on quantified marks, and the same standard should have been followed in the Review SPB. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Major General S.K. Chakravorty v. Union of India and Others | Armed Forces Tribunal | Distinguished by the AFT, but the Supreme Court found the principle to be applicable. |
| Air Vice Marshal S.L. Chabbra, VSM (Retd.) v. Union of India & Anr. (1993) Supp (4) SCC 441 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as a basis for the principle that the allocation of marks by the Board is based on value judgment. |
| Major General I.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 383 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as a basis for the principle that the allocation of marks by the Board is based on value judgment. |
| Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 305 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as a basis for the principle that the allocation of marks by the Board is based on value judgment. |
| Surinder Shukla v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 649 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as a basis for the principle that the allocation of marks by the Board is based on value judgment. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| AFT wrongly interfered with the Board’s discretion in awarding marks. | The Court acknowledged the Board’s discretion but found that the Board had not exercised it properly in this case. |
| Board marks are based on the overall profile, not just ACR marks. | The Court agreed, but noted that in the original SPB, the Board had awarded marks based on quantified marks, not the overall profile. |
| The AFT cannot determine how many marks should be awarded. | The Court agreed, but found that the AFT did not dictate marks, but rather directed a review based on the original SPB’s standards. |
| The Board members, being Service Chiefs, would have objectively assessed the respondent. | The Court acknowledged the high degree of trust in the Board members but found that the process was flawed in this case. |
| The Review SPB awarded marks inconsistently with the original SPB. | The Court agreed, noting that the original SPB awarded marks based on quantified scores, which was not followed in the Review SPB. |
| The respondent’s marks were higher than a junior officer who was promoted. | The Court noted that this was a significant factor, as the original SPB had awarded marks based on quantified scores. |
| The Board was given incorrect information about the respondent’s revised ranking. | The Court agreed, noting that the incorrect information may have influenced the Board’s decision. |
| The Board should have given the respondent 1.70 marks, as was given to the junior officer. | The Court did not direct the exact marks but agreed that the respondent was entitled to be considered on the same basis as the original SPB. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Air Vice Marshal S.L. Chabbra, VSM (Retd.) v. Union of India & Anr. (1993) Supp (4) SCC 441: The court cited this case to highlight that the allocation of marks by the Board is based on value judgment.
- Major General I.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 383: The court cited this case to highlight that the allocation of marks by the Board is based on value judgment.
- Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 305: The court cited this case to highlight that the allocation of marks by the Board is based on value judgment.
- Surinder Shukla v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 649: The court cited this case to highlight that the allocation of marks by the Board is based on value judgment.
- Major General S.K. Chakravorty v. Union of India and Others: The AFT distinguished this case, but the Supreme Court found the principle to be applicable, stating that the allocation of marks by the Board is based on value judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily influenced by the inconsistency in the application of standards between the original SPB and the Review SPB. The Court noted that the original SPB had awarded marks based on quantified scores, and the Review SPB should have followed the same principle. The incorrect information provided to the Board about the respondent’s revised ranking also weighed in the Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the need for fairness and equality in the promotion process, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistency in application of standards | 40% |
| Incorrect information provided to the Board | 30% |
| Need for fairness and equality | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Original SPB awards marks based on quantified scores.
Respondent’s statutory complaint leads to redressal and increased quantified marks.
Review SPB convened.
Review SPB does not award marks based on quantified scores like original SPB.
AFT quashes Review SPB for inconsistency.
Supreme Court upholds AFT decision.
The Court did not find any alternative interpretations. The Court held that the Review SPB should have adhered to the same standards as the original SPB, which had awarded marks based on quantified scores. The Court emphasized that the Review SPB was essentially an extension of the original SPB, and the respondent was entitled to be considered on the same parameters.
The Supreme Court upheld the AFT’s decision, directing the appellant to take further steps as stated in the AFT’s judgment. The Court emphasized that in future selections, the Board is free to award marks based on the overall profile of the officers, as per the Promotion Policy.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“In the meeting held on 20th January, 2016 Board Marks to all officers who are considered commensurate with the quantified marks of the candidates.”
“Having not undertaken the independent exercise of looking into the “overall profile” in the SPB held on 20th January, 2016 and instead assigning the marks to all the officers out of 2 marks, on the basis of quantified marks of the candidates which they had received out of 93 marks by treating the same as “overall profile”, when it comes to Review SPB the appellant is supposed to stick to the same criteria.”
“It is because of the reason that Review SPB is nothing but extension of original SPB, wherein the respondent was supposed to be considered on the same parameters as if he was participating in promotion process undertaken in original SPB.”
There was no dissenting opinion. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench.
Key Takeaways
- Promotion boards must apply consistent standards.
- If a board initially uses quantified scores as a basis for awarding marks, it must continue to do so in subsequent reviews.
- Incorrect information provided to a board can invalidate its decision.
- Fairness and equality are paramount in promotion processes.
This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness in promotion processes. It ensures that review boards do not deviate from the standards set by original boards, and that decisions are based on accurate information.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appellant to take further steps, without loss of time, as stated by the AFT in the impugned judgment. This means that a fresh Review SPB must be convened to consider the respondent’s promotion to the rank of Lt. Gen. in consonance with the parameters of relevant policies and his changed profile after allotting entitled board marks, and to also restore his seniority.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a promotion board uses a particular criteria for awarding marks, it must adhere to the same criteria in subsequent reviews. The judgment clarifies that a review promotion board is an extension of the original board and must follow the same standards. This reinforces the principle of consistency and fairness in promotion processes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the AFT’s decision. The Court emphasized that promotion boards must maintain consistency in their evaluation criteria. The judgment ensures fairness in promotion processes within the armed forces.