Supreme Court Upholds Re-evaluation for Lieutenant General Promotion: Union of India vs. Major General Arun Roy (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 09, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 371

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can changes in the assessment methods of Army officers’ confidential reports unfairly impact their promotion prospects? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Major General who was aggrieved by changes in the evaluation process and denial of promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General. The core issue revolved around the fairness and legality of the evaluation process and whether the officer was unjustly denied promotion due to irregularities in the assessment of his confidential reports. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The First Respondent, Major General Arun Roy, was commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the Army on 11.06.1967. He was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, and Brigadier. On 16.05.1996, he was appointed as Defence Attaché/Military Attaché in the United States of America. Before taking up the post, he signed an Adverse Career Certificate, acknowledging potential negative impacts on his career. While he was in the USA, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) changed the assessment method for Defence Attachés/Military Attachés by removing figurative assessments in their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), retaining only pen-picture assessments.

Upon his return to India, the First Respondent requested consideration for the National Defence College (NDC) 2000 course. He raised concerns about the removal of figurative assessments in his ACRs. The Military Secretary informed him that figurative assessments were reintroduced in 2000, but prospectively. He was not empanelled for promotion to Major General due to the lack of NDC weightage. His non-statutory complaint was rejected on 07.11.2000. He was also denied consideration for the NDC course in 2001.

The First Respondent filed a statutory complaint citing injustice due to non-consideration for the NDC course and the change in his confidential reports. He was later found fit for promotion as Major General and posted as GOC, 11th Infantry Division. His statutory complaint regarding his supersession for promotion to Major General in 2000 was rejected on 14.03.2000.

He was temporarily promoted as Deputy Director General, Assam Rifles on 26.09.2002 and later as Additional Director General, Assam Rifles on 10.01.2003. During this period, there was another change in assessment methods, which was detrimental to him. He was not empanelled for promotion to Lieutenant General. His statutory complaints against this were rejected.

Aggrieved by the rejection of his statutory complaints and non-empanelment as Lieutenant General, he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, his third statutory complaint was rejected on 02.02.2006, and he was not selected for promotion as Acting Lieutenant General.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Appellants to change the profile of the First Respondent. The Appellants were further directed to reconsider the claim of the First Respondent for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General. The Special Selection Board was directed to meet on or before 29.04.2006 to consider the claim of the First Respondent for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General on the basis of the changed profile. The members of the Special Selection Board were specifically restrained from considering the NDC aspect as the second mandatory look for NDC was illegally denied to the First Respondent. The learned Single Judge further directed that the figurative assessment in the confidential reports of the First Respondent by the GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and COAS shall also not be taken into consideration at the time of relative assessment of the candidates for the purpose of granting promotion to the post of Lieutenant General.

Both the Appellants and the First Respondent filed appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. While dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellants and allowing the appeal filed by the First Respondent, a Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench further observed that the learned Single Judge went wrong in not deciding whether the posting of the First Respondent as Defence Attaché/Military Attaché to the USA should have been treated as an Extra-Regimental Employment. The Division Bench further held that the learned Single Judge had erroneously upheld the decision of the Appellants in refusing a first look to the First Respondent for NDC, 2000 on the ground that there was no illegality in not allowing conversion of figurative assessment into numeric assessment for the years 1997-1999. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the issue pertaining to the non-selection of the First Respondent to the rank of Major General in April, 2000 ought not to have been ignored by the learned Single Judge by treating it as a non-vital issue.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Army’s policies and regulations concerning the assessment of confidential reports (ACRs) of officers, particularly those serving as Defence Attachés/Military Attachés and those in higher ranks like Deputy Director General and Additional Director General. The core issue is whether the changes in the assessment methods were implemented fairly and in accordance with the existing rules.

The Army Headquarters issued an office order on 07.04.1998, which dispensed with the system of figurative assessment in personal qualities and box-grading while retaining the pen-picture in the confidential reports of the officers holding certain specific appointments. Later, the figurative assessment was re-introduced with effect from 01.01.2000.

On 19.12.2002, an order was issued by the Military Secretary Branch regarding the initiation/endorsement of the confidential reports by reporting officers other than the Army officers. It was clarified in the said order that all reporting officers will fill up only the pen-picture and are prevented from reporting in figurative.

The procedure for selection to the NDC course provides for two looks for all Brigadiers, provided they fulfill the eligibility criteria.

Arguments

The First Respondent, Major General Arun Roy, contended that the dispensation of figurative assessment in his ACRs while he was posted as Defence Attaché/Military Attaché in the USA was prejudicial to his career prospects. He argued that this change in assessment, which was later reversed for his colleagues, unfairly impacted his chances for promotion and nomination to the NDC course. He further contended that the assessment made by the GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) in figurative terms, when he was posted as ADG, Assam Rifles, was contrary to the policy and without jurisdiction.

The First Respondent also argued that his service period as Defence Attaché/Military Attaché in the USA was not considered on the ground that the appointment of the First Respondent was an Extra-Regimental Employment. He submitted that the first mandatory look for nomination to NDC course for the year 2000 was rejected in the month of October 1999 in view of the non-consideration of his ACRs during his service as Defence Attaché/Military Attaché in the USA.

The Appellants, Union of India & Ors., argued that the changes in assessment methods were policy decisions and were applied uniformly. They also argued that the First Respondent was not considered for the first mandatory look for NDC in the year 1998 as he had forfeited his right. They submitted that the First Respondent was not considered for the second look on the ground that he was assessed as ‘not promotable’ by the concerned Selection Board.

The Appellants contended that the High Court should not interfere with the policy decisions of the Government. They submitted that the High Court should not have directed the re-assessment of the First Respondent by the Special Selection Board.

The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the learned Single Judge went wrong in not deciding whether the posting of the First Respondent as Defence Attaché/Military Attaché to the USA should have been treated as an Extra-Regimental Employment. The Division Bench further held that the learned Single Judge had erroneously upheld the decision of the Appellants in refusing a first look to the First Respondent for NDC, 2000 on the ground that there was no illegality in not allowing conversion of figurative assessment into numeric assessment for the years 1997-1999.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the re-assessment of the First Respondent by the Special Selection Board.
2. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the figurative assessment by the GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and COAS was without jurisdiction.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the second look for the NDC was illegally denied to the First Respondent.
4. Whether the Division Bench was correct in making observations pertaining to certain aspects which were not considered by the learned Single Judge.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Office order dated 07.04.1998 from the Army Headquarters regarding dispensation with the system of figurative assessment in personal qualities and box-grading.
• Order dated 19.12.2002 issued by the Military Secretary Branch regarding the initiation/endorsement of the confidential reports by reporting officers other than the Army officers.

The Court did not cite any specific case laws in its judgment.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the irregularities in the implementation of the Army’s policies regarding the assessment of confidential reports and the selection process for the National Defence College (NDC). The Court emphasized that while policy decisions are within the purview of the government, their implementation must be fair and in accordance with the established procedures. The Court found that the changes in the assessment methods, particularly the removal and re-introduction of figurative assessments, were not applied uniformly, leading to prejudice against the First Respondent. The Court also noted that the First Respondent was illegally denied a second mandatory look for the NDC course.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was significantly influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the irregularities in the assessment process and the denial of opportunities to the First Respondent. The legal considerations were also important, but the specific facts of the case played a more dominant role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court was correct in directing the re-assessment of the First Respondent by the Special Selection Board?

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was right in holding that the figurative assessment by the GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and COAS was without jurisdiction?

Issue 3: Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the second look for the NDC was illegally denied to the First Respondent?

Issue 4: Whether the Division Bench was correct in making observations pertaining to certain aspects which were not considered by the learned Single Judge?

Key Takeaways

• Fair Implementation of Policies: Changes in assessment methods must be implemented fairly and uniformly, without prejudice to any individual officer.
• Adherence to Procedures: All procedures regarding promotions and nominations must be strictly adhered to.
• Judicial Review: The High Court and Supreme Court can intervene if there is a violation of policy or if there are irregularities in the assessment process.
• Importance of Confidential Reports: Confidential reports must be assessed as per the existing rules and regulations.

The judgment emphasizes that while the government has the prerogative to make policy decisions, the implementation of these policies must be fair, transparent, and in accordance with established procedures. This ruling reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in service matters and provides a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the authorities.

Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench. The observations relating to the non-consideration of certain issues by the learned Single Judge made by the Division Bench were set aside.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the government has the power to make policy decisions, the implementation of those policies must be fair, transparent, and in accordance with established procedures. The judgment also clarifies that the High Courts and Supreme Court have the power to intervene if there is a violation of policy or if there are irregularities in the assessment process.

The judgment reinforces the principle that changes in assessment methods must be implemented uniformly and without prejudice to any individual officer. It also emphasizes the importance of adherence to established procedures in service matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India and upheld the High Court’s decision to direct a re-assessment of Major General Arun Roy’s case for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General. The Court found that the changes in the assessment methods of his confidential reports and the denial of a second look for the NDC course were not implemented fairly. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to established rules in service matters.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Promotion
• Confidential Reports
• National Defence College
• Army Regulations

Parent Category: Army Act

Child Categories:

• Assessment of Officers

FAQ

Q: Can the Army change assessment methods for officers without any notice?

A: While the Army can change assessment methods, these changes must be implemented fairly and uniformly, without causing prejudice to any officer.

Q: What happens if an officer is denied a promotion due to unfair assessment?

A: If an officer is denied a promotion due to unfair assessment, they can approach the High Court or Supreme Court for judicial review.

Q: What is the significance of the National Defence College (NDC) course for Army officers?

A: The NDC course is a prestigious course that can significantly impact an officer’s career prospects. Denial of consideration for this course can be detrimental to an officer’s career.

Q: What are confidential reports and why are they important?

A: Confidential reports are assessments of an officer’s performance and potential. They are crucial for promotion and career advancement.

Q: Can the High Court or Supreme Court interfere with the Army’s policy decisions?

A: The Courts do not interfere with the policy decisions of the Government. However, they can intervene if there is a violation of policy or if there are irregularities in the assessment process.