Supreme Court Upholds AFT Order on Promotion Despite Medical Classification: Union of India vs. Brigadier Javed Iqbal (2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an officer’s promotion can be denied based on medical classification despite a recommendation from the Selection Board and approval by higher authorities.

CASE TYPE: Service Law (Armed Forces)

Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Brigadier Javed Iqbal

[Judgment Date]: 17 May 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 May 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 483

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a military officer be denied a promotion despite being recommended by a selection board and cleared by the Chief of Defence Staff, simply because of a medical classification? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Brigadier Javed Iqbal. The Supreme Court examined whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was correct in directing the promotion of an officer who, despite a SHAPE-2 medical classification, had been recommended for promotion by the No.1 Selection Board and cleared by higher authorities. The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice A.S. Bopanna, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

Brigadier Javed Iqbal, the respondent, is an officer of the 1989 batch serving in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army. He has served for 33 years and holds the position of Deputy Judge Advocate General. The case revolves around his claim for promotion to the rank of Major General, which corresponds to the post of Additional Judge Advocate General. A vacancy for this position arose on 01 December 2020. The No.1 Selection Board, which included the Chief of the Army Staff, recommended the respondent for promotion on 26 October 2020. The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) also cleared the respondent for promotion after reviewing his medical status. However, the Military Secretary later raised objections, which led to the denial of the promotion.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent filed an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) seeking relief after being denied promotion. The AFT, after reviewing the documents and arguments, concluded that the No.1 Selection Board had considered all relevant aspects before recommending the respondent. The AFT also noted that the respondent’s medical category had been upgraded to SHAPE-1 by a Re-Medical Board. Consequently, the AFT allowed the application and directed the grant of promotion. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court against this order of the AFT.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following key legal provisions and regulations:

• Circular dated 14 December 2012: This circular outlines the system of medical classification of Army officers and their eligibility for promotion to select ranks. It specifies that officers in SHAPE-1 and SHAPE-1B medical categories are promotable. It also states that officers in SHAPE-2 with certain disability profiles may be considered for promotion if their overall COPE coding is COPE-0 or COPE-1.
• Defence Service Regulations for the Army, Regulation 67: This regulation governs substantive promotion by selection. Specifically, Regulation 67(b) states that promotion to the rank of Lt. Col and above is subject to medical fitness. It specifies that officers with a permanent medical classification other than S1 H1 A1 P1 E1, S1 H2 A1 P1 E1, or S1 H1 A1 P1 E2 may also be considered for promotion if it is in the public interest and a Medical Board deems them capable of performing normal duties.
  
  The relevant portion of Regulation 67(b) is:
  
  “Substantive promotion by selection to the rank of Lt. Col and above will be subject to the medical fitness of the officer concerned for active service and the permanent medical classification of an officer not being other than S1 H1 A1 P1 E1, S1 H2 A1 P1 E1 or S1 H1 A1 P1 E2. An officer whose permanent classification is S1 H1 A2 P1 E1, S1 H1 A1 P2 E1 or S1 H2 A1 P1 E2 may also be considered for promotion provided the following conditions are fulfilled :­
  (i)Such promotion would be in the public interest.
  (ii)In the opinion of a Medical Board:­
  (aa)the officer is capable of performing the normal active service duties of the rank to which he is, being promoted, in his present medical category.
  (ab)any defect, disability, or disease, from which the officer is suffering, is not likely to be aggravated by service conditions, provided he is employed on duties compatible with this medical category and within the restrictions placed by the Board.”
• Circular dated 06 May 1987: This circular relates to the selection process and specifies the composition of the Selection Board for various ranks. It also outlines the aspects to be considered, including the medical classification of the officer.
• Circular dated 07 September 2016: This circular states that after the declassification of Selection Board results, officers are promoted based on the availability of vacancies, performance, and medical fitness. It emphasizes that only officers in an acceptable medical category should be promoted.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

Appellant’s Arguments (Union of India):

• The appellant argued that promotions in the Indian Army are subject to meeting medical criteria.
• The respondent was placed in a low medical category (SHAPE-2) due to hypertension, which, according to the Adjutant General’s Branch policy letter dated 16 February 2018, is a non-promotable category.
• The appellant contended that the respondent’s medical category remained P2(P) with COPE coding C201P1El, making him unfit for promotion despite empanelment.
• The appellant highlighted that the respondent was advised to take medication for hypertension and had falsely stated he was not on medication during a re-medical board.
• The appellant argued that the guidelines are applicable to all, irrespective of the Corps or Branch, especially since the duties might require service in high-altitude areas.
• The appellant relied on the circular dated 14 December 2012, which stipulates that officers in SHAPE-2 with disability profile A2 or P2 (other than dental) or H2E2 are promotable only if the overall COPE coding is COPE-0 or COPE-1, which was not the case with the respondent.
• The appellant also referred to the circular dated 7 September 2016, which states that only those officers who are in an acceptable medical category are to be promoted.

Respondent’s Arguments (Brigadier Javed Iqbal):

• The respondent argued that the No.1 Selection Board had considered his medical condition in detail and recommended him for promotion.
• The respondent contended that the Chief of Defence Staff and the competent authority had accepted the recommendation of the No.1 Selection Board.
• The respondent argued that the Military Secretary had interfered with his promotion despite having no such power.
• The respondent highlighted that his medical category was upgraded to SHAPE-1 by a Re-Medical Board on 21 September 2021, after his blood pressure was found within permissible parameters.
• The respondent relied on Regulation 67 of the Defence Service Regulations for the Army, which allows for consideration of promotion even for officers in medical classification S1H1A1P1E2 if certain conditions are met.
• The respondent emphasized that he was performing the duties of Deputy JAG effectively, even with his medical classification.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument that the Selection Board and the Chief of Defence Staff had already considered his medical condition and that the Military Secretary had no power to interfere was particularly innovative.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was correct in directing the promotion of the respondent, despite his medical classification, given the recommendation of the No.1 Selection Board and the approval by the Chief of Defence Staff.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The circular dated 14 December 2012 was considered but the court noted that the respondent’s case was also covered under Regulation 67(b).
• The Defence Service Regulations for the Army, Regulation 67, was interpreted to allow consideration for promotion even for officers in SHAPE-2 if certain conditions were met.
• The circular dated 06 May 1987 was used to highlight the composition and guidelines of the Selection Board and the importance of considering the medical classification of the officer.
• The circular dated 07 September 2016 was noted, but the court emphasized that the respondent’s medical condition had improved and was considered by the Selection Board.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, which can be categorized into the following:

• Conscious Decision by No.1 Selection Board: The Court emphasized that the No.1 Selection Board was aware of the respondent’s medical condition and had still recommended him for promotion. This indicated that the Board had applied its mind to all relevant factors, including the medical classification and the nature of duties in the JAG branch.
• Approval by Higher Authorities: The fact that the Chief of Defence Staff had also reviewed the respondent’s medical status and cleared him for promotion weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. This demonstrated that high-ranking authorities had considered all aspects and found the respondent suitable for promotion.
• Improvement in Medical Condition: The Court noted that the respondent’s medical condition had improved, as evidenced by the medical opinion dated 20 September 2021, which stated that he was asymptomatic and not on medication for hypertension. The Court also observed that the Re-Medical Board had upgraded the respondent to SHAPE-1.
• Nature of Duties: The Court considered the nature of duties in the JAG branch, which typically involve work at headquarters rather than high-altitude areas. This meant that the respondent’s medical condition did not pose a significant hurdle to his ability to perform his duties.
• Lack of Justification for Military Secretary’s Objections: The Court found that the repeated objections by the Military Secretary were not justified, especially given the approvals by the No.1 Selection Board and the Chief of Defence Staff.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning for upholding the AFT order can be logically represented as follows:

The Court considered the argument that the respondent’s medical condition (SHAPE-2) made him ineligible for promotion. However, the court rejected this argument by highlighting that:

• Regulation 67(b) of the Defence Service Regulations allows for consideration of promotion even for officers in SHAPE-2 if they are capable of performing normal duties.
• The No.1 Selection Board had already considered the respondent’s medical condition.
• The respondent’s medical condition had improved.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following key reasons:

• The No.1 Selection Board had consciously applied its mind to the medical records and the nature of duties in the JAG branch.
• The Chief of Defence Staff had also approved the recommendation after considering the medical status.
• The respondent’s medical condition had improved, and he was upgraded to SHAPE-1.
• The Military Secretary’s objections were not justified, given the approvals by higher authorities.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the Medical Board opinion dated 20.09.2021:

“This 57 year old serving officer was detected to have hypertension during AME in Apr 2018. He was evaluated and diagnosed to have Primary Hypertension. He was advised medication BP control was adequate. Subsequently the officer has discontinued medicine for last one year as recorded by AMS and BP has remained within normal limits (Photocopy of BP recordings by AMA attached). He is being observed in LMC P2 (Permanent). He has reported for remedial exam/Board as per directions of the COAS vide integrated HQ, MoD letter no. 76086/Gen/DGMS­5A dated 13 Sep. 2021. He is presently asymptomatic. He is not on any medication for Hypertension.

3. DIAGNOSIS : Primary Hypertension

Opinion: This 57 year old serving officer is a case of primary hypertension. He has adequate blood pressure control with life style modification for one year. BP control remains adequate. He has no target organ damage. In view of the above, the officer is a candidate for upgradation to SHAPE­I (as per DGAFMS memorandum No. 182 of 2012 Para 17 d)”

The Court also noted the following from the circular dated 07.09.2016:

“3. Post declassification of Selection Board results the empanelled officers are promoted in their turn based on availability of vacancies, performance & medical fitness. Given the time lag between the declassification of Selection Board results and physical promotion of an officer, there is a need to ensure that only ‘those officers who are in acceptable medical category are promoted to the next higher rank. The actions to be taken by the officers and their Reporting chain on empanelment and during physical assumption of next higher rank are enumerated in succeeding paragraphs.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases involving promotions in the armed forces. It emphasizes that medical classifications should not be the sole determinant for promotion, and that the recommendations of the selection board and the approval of higher authorities should also be given due consideration.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it clarified the interpretation of existing regulations and guidelines, emphasizing that a holistic approach must be taken when considering promotions.

Key Takeaways

• Medical classifications are not the sole determinant for promotion in the armed forces.
• The recommendations of the Selection Board and the approval of higher authorities are significant factors.
• The nature of duties and the specific circumstances of each case must be considered.
• Improved medical conditions can be a basis for reconsideration of promotion eligibility.
• Objections from lower authorities should not override the decisions of higher authorities without valid reasons.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the order passed by the AFT be implemented forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while medical fitness is important for promotion in the armed forces, it is not the sole criterion. The recommendations of the Selection Board, approval by higher authorities, and the nature of duties must also be considered. This case clarifies that even if an officer has a SHAPE-2 medical classification, they can be considered for promotion if they are capable of performing their duties and their medical condition has improved, as per Regulation 67(b). This decision does not change the previous position of law but provides a more nuanced interpretation of the existing regulations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order, directing the promotion of Brigadier Javed Iqbal to the rank of Major General. The Court emphasized that the No.1 Selection Board had considered all relevant factors, including the respondent’s medical condition, and that the Chief of Defence Staff had approved the recommendation. The Court also noted that the respondent’s medical condition had improved. This judgment underscores the importance of a holistic approach to promotions in the armed forces, where medical fitness is considered alongside other factors such as the recommendations of selection boards and the nature of duties.

Category:

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Armed Forces Tribunal

Child Category: Promotion

Child Category: Medical Fitness

Parent Category: Defence Service Regulations for the Army

Child Category: Regulation 67, Defence Service Regulations for the Army

FAQ

Q: Can a military officer be denied a promotion solely based on their medical classification?

A: No, a medical classification is not the sole determinant for promotion. The recommendations of the selection board, approval by higher authorities, and the nature of duties are also important factors.

Q: What is the significance of the SHAPE-2 medical classification in this case?

A: The SHAPE-2 medical classification indicates certain medical limitations. However, the Supreme Court noted that officers in SHAPE-2 can still be considered for promotion if they are capable of performing their duties and their medical condition has improved.

Q: What role did the No.1 Selection Board play in this case?

A: The No.1 Selection Board recommended the respondent for promotion after considering his medical condition and other factors. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Board’s decision was based on a conscious application of mind.

Q: What was the role of the Chief of Defence Staff in this case?

A: The Chief of Defence Staff reviewed the respondent’s medical status and approved the recommendation for promotion, which was a significant factor in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Q: What if there is a disagreement between the Military Secretary and higher authorities?

A: The Supreme Court found that the Military Secretary’s objections were not justified, especially given the approvals by the No.1 Selection Board and the Chief of Defence Staff.

Q: What should military officers do if they are denied promotion due to medical reasons?

A: Military officers who are denied promotion due to medical reasons should seek a re-evaluation of their medical condition and appeal to the appropriate authorities. It is also important to ensure that all relevant factors, including the recommendations of the selection board and the nature of duties, are considered.