The Supreme Court has come to the aid of a Selection Grade Lieutenant Colonel who was considered by the Selection Board for promotion on five occasions between 2000 and 2003,but was not empanelled to the rank of Colonel. The Apex Court has now directed the reconsideration of the grading given to him.

The appellant challenged the Judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (Tribunal).

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “According to the DSR, the final authority for granting promotions is the COAS. We find that in the case of respondent No. 2, the COAS reconsidered his case. However, that was not done in the case of the appellant. In our view, as the COAS has reconsidered the case of respondent No. 2, the case of the appellant for upgradation ought to have been considered.”

The appellant appeared in person while AOR Dr. N. Visakamurthy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was commissioned into the Territorial Army in 1978. On March 14, 1991, he was promoted to Time Scale Major and later promoted to Selection Grade Lieutenant Colonel. The Selection Board considered him for promotion on five occasions between 2000 and 2003 but did not empanel him. The appellant filed several statutory and non-statutory complaints. The first non-statutory complaint was against the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of 1998, where redress was granted by GOC-in-C, Northern Command. Non-statutory complaints against non-empanelment made in 2000 & 2002 were rejected. A non-statutory complaint against ACR of October 2000 was pending when the impugned Judgment was delivered.

In 2006, the statutory complaint was rejected by a detailed speaking order. The appellant filed a Writ Petition, which was later transferred to the Tribunal. By the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal found no error with the act of not placing the appellant in an acceptable grade for promotion to the rank of Colonel.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant that he had been victimized and denied promotion to the post of Colonel. The appellant submitted that his ACRs had been above average or near excellent. He pointed out that as per Clause (c) of Paragraph 38 of Territorial Army Regulations, 1948, Territorial Army officers will be eligible for promotion by selection to the substantive rank of Colonel against specific vacancies after completion of 22 years of service.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that in the proceedings of No. 3 Selection Board in July 2000, it was recorded that the appellant’s case was considered along with respondent 2 and Lt. Colonel A. Singh. The name of respondent 2 was deferred. In the June 2001 process, there were three candidates, including the appellant, respondent 2, and Col. N.K.V. Narayanan. Grading ‘B’ was given to respondent 2 and Col. N. K. V. Narayanan, and they were found fit for promotion to the next higher rank. However, the appellant was given grading ‘Z’.

The Bench further noticed that in the record of No.3 Selection Board of June 2001, grading ‘Z’ was given to respondent 2, but the same was altered by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) by converting ‘Z’ into ‘B’. According to the DSR, the final authority for granting promotions is the COAS. It was noted that the case of respondent 2 was reconsidered by the COAS, and the appellant’s case should have been considered.

The Bench thus directed reconsideration of the grading given to the appellant in the selection process of June 2001. “We direct that in the selection process of June 2001, the case of the appellant for upgradation from category ‘Z’ shall be considered by the COAS. An appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of three months from today”, it held.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “Needless to add that if, ultimately, grading ‘Z’ is upgraded, the case of the appellant for grant of notional promotion shall be considered along with consequential benefits.”

Cause Title: Lt. Col NK Ghai (Retd.) v. Union of India and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 750)

Appearance:

Appellant: In person

Respondent: AOR Dr. N. Visakamurthy

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.