Supreme Court Upholds Army Commander Appointments: Ravi Dastane vs. Union of India (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 1 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 166

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can the selection process for high-ranking military positions be challenged if it appears that seniority was the sole determining factor? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Army Commanders. The core issue was whether the appointments were made based on a comparative evaluation of merit or solely on seniority. This judgment clarifies the selection process for Army Commanders and the importance of considering multiple factors beyond just seniority. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appointments of Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh and Lieutenant General Sanjiv Chachra as Army Commanders. In March 2012, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) proposed filling two Army Commander vacancies due to retirements. A list of seven eligible Lieutenant Generals was prepared, including the appellant, Lt Gen Ravi Dastane. The COAS recommended Lt Gen Dalbir Singh for the Eastern Command and Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachra for the Western Command.

On April 18, 2012, a Court of Inquiry report regarding an incident in Dimapur was sent to Army Headquarters. On May 19, 2012, a show cause notice and a discipline and vigilance (DV) ban were issued to Lt Gen Dalbir Singh. Despite this, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) had already endorsed his appointment on May 5, 2012. The proposal was put on hold due to the DV ban on May 29, 2012. However, the ban was lifted on June 7, 2012, and Lt Gen Dalbir Singh’s appointment was approved on June 15, 2012.

Lt Gen Ravi Dastane, aggrieved by these appointments, filed representations and a statutory complaint, which was rejected on January 31, 2013. Subsequently, he filed an Original Application (OA) before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), challenging the appointments and seeking consideration for the post. The AFT dismissed his application on September 6, 2013, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Lt Gen Ravi Dastane, initially submitted representations to the COAS and the Defence Minister, which were followed by a statutory complaint. After the rejection of his complaint by the Union government, he filed an Original Application (OA) before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The AFT dismissed the OA, stating that the appointments were made after a comparative study of merit and that the prescribed procedure was followed. The AFT noted that the service profiles of all seven eligible officers were examined and the recommendations were made accordingly. Aggrieved by the AFT’s decision, Lt Gen Ravi Dastane appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appointment of Army Commanders is governed by specific criteria laid down by the Government of India. A communication dated 20 October 1986, issued by the Ministry of Defence, stipulates that an officer must be fit in every respect for such an appointment and have a minimum of two years of service left before retirement. An additional requirement was added on 18 November 1996, stating that the officer should have commanded a Corps for at least one year.

The communication dated 20 October 1986 states:

“a)The officer should be fit in every respect for such appointment and
b)The officer should have a minimum of two years left before the retirement age from the date of appointment as Army Commander/ VCOAS.
c)This will be applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1988.
d)as a one time exception, the pay but not the status of an Army Commander will be given to those General officers, presently holding the rank of Lieutenant gen, who are otherwise found fit to hold the appointment but are not selected because of the revision in the criteria.”

The additional requirement dated 18 November 1996 stated:

“(e)The officer should have commanded a Corps for at least one year so as to become eligible for appointment as Army Commander/VCOAS. No waiver in this stipulation will be allowed without prior concurrence of the Government.”

A policy circular dated 16 October 1992, clarifies that since commanding a Corps is a prerequisite, it is essential to clarify the parameters for appointment of Corps Commanders. It also mentions that there is a government requirement to suggest two senior eligible officers for each Army Commander’s vacancy.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• ✓ The appointment of Army Commanders is by selection and not on the basis of seniority, as reiterated in Union of India v Lt Gen Rajendra Singh Kadyan [(2000) 6 SCC 698].
• ✓ The Union government, while rejecting the statutory complaint, noted that the proposal was based on seniority, overlooking the requirement of selection.
• ✓ There was no evaluation of the comparative merit of officers, and exclusive weight was given to the seniority of the third and fourth respondents.
• ✓ The names of two senior eligible officers were not recommended against each vacancy, as mandated by the policy decision dated 16 October 1992.
• ✓ The Defence Minister recommended only two candidates, depriving the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) of its authority to choose the best among available officers.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• ✓ The appeal has become infructuous due to the superannuation of the appellant and the third respondent.
• ✓ The appellant’s case is that the imposition of a Type A DV ban on the third respondent should have led to the immediate appointment of the appellant.
• ✓ The DV ban was lifted on 1 June 2012, and by the time of the third respondent’s appointment on 15 June 2012, there was no bar on his appointment.
• ✓ The appellant had no vested right to be appointed during the period of the ban.
• ✓ The decision in Kadyan (supra) establishes that the post of Army Commander is a selection post, not based on seniority alone.
• ✓ Even if the third respondent was ineligible due to the DV ban, the appellant had no vested right to selection as the senior-most officer.
• ✓ The complete service profile of seven officers was forwarded to the Defence Minister, and after due consideration, the third and fourth respondents were recommended to the ACC.

The innovativeness in the argument made by the appellant was that the Union Government itself had acknowledged that the appointments were made on the basis of seniority and not on the basis of merit, thereby going against the law laid down in Kadyan (supra).

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

• ✓ Whether the appointment of the third and fourth respondents as Army Commanders was based on seniority alone, without a comparative evaluation of the merits of other eligible officers.
• ✓ Whether the procedure followed for the appointment of Army Commanders was in accordance with the established norms and guidelines.
• ✓ Whether the appellant had a vested right to be appointed as an Army Commander.

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?

• ✓ Union of India v Lt Gen Rajendra Singh Kadyan [(2000) 6 SCC 698]*: The Court followed this judgment, reiterating that the post of Army Commander is a selection post and not based on seniority alone.
• ✓ Letter dated 20 October 1986: The Court acknowledged this letter as outlining the criteria for appointment, emphasizing fitness and a minimum service period.
• ✓ Letter dated 18 November 1996: The Court noted this letter added the requirement of commanding a Corps for at least one year.
• ✓ Policy decision dated 16 October 1992: The Court held that the requirement to suggest two senior eligible officers was directory.
• ✓ Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961: The Court held that the appointment process was in compliance with these rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that the appointment of Army Commanders is a selection post, not solely based on seniority. The Court noted that while seniority is a relevant factor, it is not the sole determinant. The Court reviewed the records and found that the service profiles of all eligible officers were considered by the COAS and the Defence Minister. The ACC was also apprised of the relevant facts before approving the appointments. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant did not have a vested right to be appointed simply because of his seniority.

The fact:law ratio shows that the court relied more on the legal principle that the post of Army Commander is a selection post and not based on seniority alone.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that the appointments were based exclusively on seniority. The court noted that the COAS had considered the service profiles of seven officers, and the Defence Minister and ACC were apprised of the fact that five officers fulfilled the criteria for the post. The court also rejected the argument that the Defence Minister had deprived the ACC of its authority, stating that the ACC was aware of the material facts before approving the appointments.

The Court held that the appellant did not have a vested right to be appointed as an Army Commander. The Court emphasized that the post is a selection post, and seniority alone does not guarantee appointment.

The Supreme Court observed that the principle that seniority alone does not confer a right to appointment to a selection post does not mean that the authority making the appointments must be oblivious to seniority. Seniority brings with it experience of organization, handling situations, perspective and planning.

The Court quoted from the judgment in Kadyan (supra):

“..Though diametrically opposite views are stated, on a careful reading of this letter it becomes clear that “an officer should be fit in every respect for such appointment” will not merely mean that he must be physically fit or mentally fit but in every other respect…it is a selection and not a mere promotion on the basis of seniority.”

The Court further stated:

“The appointing authority is best suited to determine who among the officers in the rank of Lieutenant General is suited for appointment against a vacancy.”

The Court also noted:

“In making appointments to such crucial posts which carry enormous functional responsibilities bearing on the defence needs of the Armed Forces and ultimately of the nation, a range of relevant considerations can be borne in mind.”

The Court did not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The appointment of Army Commanders is a selection post, not solely based on seniority.
• ✓ Seniority is a relevant factor but not the sole determinant in the selection process.
• ✓ The appointing authority has the discretion to consider a range of relevant factors.
• ✓ Officers do not have a vested right to be appointed based on seniority alone.
• ✓ The service profiles of all eligible officers must be considered in the selection process.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the appointment of Army Commanders is a selection post, where seniority is a relevant factor but not the sole determinant. This case reaffirms the principle laid down in Kadyan (supra) that the appointment is not based on seniority alone. The court clarified that the service profiles of all eligible officers must be considered before making a recommendation. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Lt Gen Ravi Dastane, upholding the appointments of Lt Gen Dalbir Singh and Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachra as Army Commanders. The Court reiterated that the post of Army Commander is a selection post, not solely based on seniority. The Court found that the service profiles of all eligible officers were considered, and the prescribed procedure was followed. This judgment clarifies the selection process for high-ranking military positions and emphasizes the importance of considering multiple factors beyond just seniority.