A. K. Patnaik, J.-- In this appeal, we are concerned with the promotion of officers working as Brigadiers to the rank of Major General in the Indian Army. According to a circular dated 9th September, 1986 of the Military ? ^rotary Army Headquarters, New Delhi, officers on promotion to Major General and Lt General, were 10 be bifuracted into 'Commandant and Staff and 'Staff only' streams. The circular stated that very high calibre officers were to be promoted to the 'Commandant and Staff stream and were to hold command appointments in the higher rank and were to be eligible for further promotion as per the existing criteria whereas officers promoted to the 'Staff only' stream were to hold only staff appointments in the higher rank and were thereafter to proceed on superannuation and were not to be eligible for further promotion. In the said circular it was further stipulated, that the cases of officers who were selected for 'Staff only' stream were to be reviewed after the initial selection for being moved into the 'Commandant and Staff stream. The said circular further provided that officers of the general cadre who were selected for the 'Staff only' stream would be inducted into the stream subject to their rendering willingness certificate. 2. By an Army headquarter letter dated 25th July, 1990 Special Confidential Reports (for short SCRs) for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90 in respect of several officers including the respondent were called for the purpose of promotion and the respondent along with other officers were considered for promotion to the rank of Major General by a Selection Board on 21st/22nd September, 1990 and the said Selection Board found him unfit for promotion to 'Commandant and Staff stream but found him suitable for promotion to the 'Staff only' stream in the rank of Major General. Pursuant to the said selection, the respondent submitted a willingness certificate and was promoted to the rank of Major General 'Staff only' stream. Thereafter the respondent was again considered by the 1 st Review Board on 24th/25th April, 1992 for 'Commandant and Staff stream but was not found suitable. Again on 18th September. 1993, the Review Board considered the case of the respondent for 'Commandant and Staff stream but did not find him suitable. Thereafter the respondent was again considered by the 1 st Review Board on 24th/25th April, 1992 for 'Commandant and Staff stream but was not found suitable. Again on 18th September. 1993, the Review Board considered the case of the respondent for 'Commandant and Staff stream but did not find him suitable. In the meanwhile, as the respondent thought that the Special Confidential Report (for short the SCR) submitted by the RO Lt General Dias on 10.8.90 grading the respondent as 'high average' for the period 1.9.85 to 31.7.90 had influenced the decision of the Selection/Review Boards in not selecting him for 'Commandant and Staff stream in the rank of Major General, he filed a non-statutory complaint against the said SCR which was rejected by the Chief of the Army Staff vide communication dated 7.3.93. The respondent also filed a statutory complaint against the decisions of the Selection/Review Boards, but the same was rejected vide order dated 16.8.93 of the Central Government. Consequently, the respondent continued to be a Major General in 'Staff only' stream and was not given any further promotion. 3. Aggrieved, the respondent filed Civil Rule No.51 (K.) of 1994 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the SCR dated 10.8.90 initiated by Lt General Dias as his RO and the aforesaid decisions of the Selection/Review Boards not to select the respondent for promotion to the 'Commandant and Staff stream in the rank of Major General. By the impugned judgment dated 8.9.95, the learned Single Judge held that the SCR dated Fo.8.90 of Lt General Dias in respect of the respondent was technically invalid and inconsistent and accordingly quashed the same and directed that the respondent shall be deemed to have been selected for promotion along with Major General IS Sawhney and Major General RK Sawhney who had in the meanwhile been promoted to the post of Lt General (Command and Staff). It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge which has been challenged in this appeal by the appellant on several grounds. 4. Mr. AR Barthakur. It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge which has been challenged in this appeal by the appellant on several grounds. 4. Mr. AR Barthakur. learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent having furnished the willingness certificate in terms of the circular dated 9.9.86 to work in the 'Staff only" stream in the rank of Major General was estopped from claiming promotion to the 'Commandant and Staff stream in the rank of Major General and hence the writ petition was liable to be rejected on this ground only. Mr. Barthakur cited the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc Petition No.148 of 1990 in the case of Major General PS Verma vs. Union of India wherein the willingness certificate given by an officer to join the 'Staff only' stream was relied upon to reject the claim of the officer in the writ petition to a higher age of superannuation. 5. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. Barthakur. In the aforesaid case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, an officer who was a Major General in the 'Staff only' stream and who was sought to be retired at the age of 55 years claimed that he was entitled to continue in service till the age of 56 years which was the age for retirement of officers in the other streams. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that under the circular dated 9.9.86, the age of retirement for officers promoted into the 'Staff only' stream was one year earlier and the officer having accepted the promotion to the rank of Major General in 'Staff only' stream by furnishing willingness certificate could not content that his age of retirement was unreasonable and should be 56 years. In the present case, on the other hand, the respondent's case is that he should have been promoted to. the rank of Major General in the 'Commandant and Staff stream and not 'Staff only' stream and that denial of such promotion to the respondent was arbitrary, and was violative of his fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. When the respondent was selected for promotion to the Major General in 'Staff only' stream, he furnished the willingness certificate to be promoted to the rank of Major General in the 'Staff only' stream to enjoy the benefits of promotion to the rank of Major General. When the respondent was selected for promotion to the Major General in 'Staff only' stream, he furnished the willingness certificate to be promoted to the rank of Major General in the 'Staff only' stream to enjoy the benefits of promotion to the rank of Major General. This conduct of the respondent in furnishing willingness certificate for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of promotion cannot operate as a estoppel against the respondent to challenge the decision of the authorities not to select him for promotion in the rank of Major General in 'Commandant and Staff stream on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of his fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution because as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 , such concession if enforced would defeat the purpose of the Constitution in guaranteeing fundamental rights to citizens and an all powerful state could easily tempt a person to forgo his fundamental rights on promise of some immediate benefits. 6. Mr. Barthakur next submitted that the writ petition should have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge as not maintainable as the Selection/ Review Boards whose decisions have been challenged in the writ petition have not been made parties in the writ petition. But on a reading of the writ petition we find that no allegations of malafide have been made against the members of the Selection/Review Boards. The only allegations of malafide that have been made are against Lt General Dias who had written the SCR dated 10.8.90 in respect of the respondent and in the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the said allegations of malafide have not been established against Lt General Dias. What remains, therefore, is the challenge to the said SCR dated 10.8.90 in respect of the respondent and to the decisions of the Selection/Review Boards not to select the respondent for the 'Commandant and Staff stream in the rank of Major General on grounds other than malafides and the consequential denial of promotion to the respondent to 'Commandant and Staff stream in the rank of Major General by the Ministry of Defence, Govt of India. In such a challenge to the decisions of the authorities not to select the respondent for the 'Commandant and Staff stream in the rank of Major General on grounds other than malafide, we are of the view that it is not necessary for the respondent-writ petitioner to implead the Selection/Review Boards or their members as parties in the writ petition. Moreover, in course of hearing of this writ appeal, we find that the Ministry of Defence, Govt of India, has taken a lot of pains to place before this Court the relevant records to justify the decisions of Selection/Review Boads in not recommending the respondent-writ petitioner for 'Commandant and Staff stream in the rank of Major General. No prejudice as such therefore would be sufferred by the Selection/Review Boards or their members, if they are not made parties in this case. 7. Mr. Barthakur contended that one of the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for coming to the conclusion that the Special Confidential Report (for short the SCR) dated 10.8.90 given by General Dias in respect of the respondent was technically invalid was that the Army HQ letter dated 25.7.90 called for a report under paragraph 77 (a) of the Special Army Order-3/S/89 (for short 'the SAO') but the SCR that was submitted by Lt General Dias in respect of the respondent was not under paragraph 77 (a) of the SAO but was under paragraph 73 of the SAO. Mr. Barthakur submitted that this view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is erroneous. According to him, although by the Army HQ letter dated 25.7.90 SCRs in respect of several officers were called for under paragraph 77 (a) of the SAO. the SCR of the respondent could be initiated by the RO only under paragraph 73 of the SAO. In the said paragraph 73 of the SAO it was stipulated that if an 1O was unable to initiate an ACR which is otherwise due the report would be initiated by the RO provided the ratee had rendered 90 days physical service under him and an approval for such initiation was accorded by the SRO. He explained that under paragraph 54 of the SAO for all officers in the rank of colonel and above such as the respondent, the due date of initiation of ACR was 1st September. He explained that under paragraph 54 of the SAO for all officers in the rank of colonel and above such as the respondent, the due date of initiation of ACR was 1st September. When a report was called for in July, 1990, ACRs in respect of the respondent and other officers were not ' due. Accordingly, by Army HQ letter dated 25.7.90. SCRs for the period 1st September, 1989 to 31st July. 1990 were called for in terms of paragraph 77 (a) of the SAO so as to reach the MS Branch by 8.8.90. During this period from 1.9.89 and 3 1.7.90. the respondent had not physically worked under his previous 1O for a period of 90 days as the said 1O was on leave for some period and retired on 31.5.90. The respondent had also not physically worked for the minimum period of 90 days under the new 1O who had joined after the retirement of old IO. In the circumstances, therefore, the 1O could not initiate SCR in respect of the respondent for the period from 1.9.89 to 31.7.90 and under paragraph 73 of the SAO. the RO could initiate SCR with the approval of the SRO provided the respondent had rendered 90 days physically service under him. As the respondent had rendered 202 days physical service under Lt General Dias, the RO, and an approval had been accorded by the SRO for such initiation of SCR in respect of the respondent for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90. Lt General Dias-wrote the SCR dated 10.8.90. 8. Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the finding given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that the SCR dated 10.8.90 of Lt General Dias in respect of the respondent is technically invalid is correct although the reasons given for the said finding by the learned Single Judge may not be appropriate. Mr. Mazumdar argued that the respondent was promoted and had been working as Brigadier since 1986 and had earned four ACRs upto the year, 1989 and as 18 months of command on Brigade and only two command reports were required for consideration for further promotion, no SCR was really required for considering the case of the respondent for promotion to the rank of Major General. It was therefore not necessary for the Army Headquarter to have called for the SCR of the respondent for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90. He further urged that in the Army HQ letter dated 25.7.90, SCRs for the period 1st September, 1989 to 31.7.90 were called for in respect of several officers mentioned in the appendix in terms of paragraph 77 (a) of the SAO and not in respect of the respondent specifically. The said letter also made it clear that if no SCR became due for initiation NI Form may be forwarded. Accordingly, Mr. Mazumdar contended that NI Forms should have been forwarded in the case of the respondent for the aforesaid period 1st September, 1989 to 31.7.90 as the respondent had not completed 90 days of physical service either under the old IO or under the new IO upto 31.7.90. He vehemently argued that there was absolutely no need for the authority to have sought permission for initiating Special Confidential Report by the RO under paragraph 73 of the SAO, particularly when no mention as such for initiation of special confidential report by the RO under paragraph 73 of the SAO was made in the Army HQ letter dated 25.7.90. He further contended that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, if at all any report for the period after 1st September,..1989, was considered necessary for considering the case of the respondent for promotion to the rank of Major General, the case of the respondent ought to have been deferred or withdrawn from the Selection Board which met on 21/22.9.90 and the respondent could have been considered for promotion in the next Selection Board, as was done in the case of many other officers, by which time the respondent could have completed the mandatory period of 90 days physical service under the new IO and the report of the new IO who had actually seen the work of the respondent would have . been available. Such delayed report by the IO on the basis of his personal observation would have been in consonance with paragraph 5 of the SAO which provided that the aim of Confidential Reports was to have an objective assessment of the officer's qualities as observed during the period covered by the report. Mr. been available. Such delayed report by the IO on the basis of his personal observation would have been in consonance with paragraph 5 of the SAO which provided that the aim of Confidential Reports was to have an objective assessment of the officer's qualities as observed during the period covered by the report. Mr. Mazumdar submitted that paragraph 61 and 62 of the SAO provided for delayed initiation of ACRs and paragraph 8 of the SAO stipulated that in case the confidential report which is due cannot be initiated due to any reason, a non-initiation of report will have to be forwarded to Army HQ, MS Branch through the Reviewing Officer. Mr. Mazumdar also relied on paragraph 67 of the SAO which provided that paragraph 65 of the SAO would apply first and then paragraph 73 of the SAO will apply. He argued that under paragraph 65, the report was to be initiated by the officer under whom the officer reported upon served for the longest period during the reporting year if for any reason it could not be initiated under paragraphs 54,5 7 or 61 of the SAO. The aforesaid paragraph 65 related to initiation of confidential report by an IO and hence paragraph 73 which provided for initiation of ACR by RO was not applicable. Finally, Mr. Mazumdar relied on paragraph 31 (b) of the SAO which made a distinction between 'service together' and 'physical service'. He submitted that the old IO retired on 30.5.90 and the new IO took over charge soon thereafter and hence one IO or the other was always available upto 31.7.90 and the respondent did not really put in physical service tinder the RO Lt General Dias. 9. On a reading of the SAO which comprises of instructions issued by Military Secretary Branch, Ministry of Defence, Government of India for rendering confidential reports on officers, we find that it contemplates five types of confidential report namely (a) Annual Confidential Report (b) Interim Confidential Report (c) Special Confidential Report (d) Adverse Confidential Report and (e) Review Confidential Report. Part IV of the SAO deals with Annual and Interim Confidential Reports and the said part starts with paragraph 54 and ends with paragraph 76. Accordingly, paragraphs 61, 62, 65 and 67 on which Mr. Part IV of the SAO deals with Annual and Interim Confidential Reports and the said part starts with paragraph 54 and ends with paragraph 76. Accordingly, paragraphs 61, 62, 65 and 67 on which Mr. Mazumdar has placed reliance relate to Annual Confidential Reports and do not apply to Special Confidential Reports which were called for by the Army Headquarter letter dated 25th July, 1990. The said Army Headquarter letter dated 25th July, .1990 is quoted herein below : "Special Confidential Report: Officers 1. Special Confidential Reports for the period from 1st September 1989 to 31st July, 1990 in respect of officers mentioned at Appx 'A' are required by Army HQ in terms of para 77 (a) of SAO 3.5.89. You are therefore requested to get the Special CRs initiated on the officers in due course and forward to this HQ by 08 August, 1990 positively. 2. In some cases where ICRs have already been raised Special CRs for the remaining period (upto 31st July 1990) may be initiated. If no Special CRs become due for initiation, NI forms may kindly be forwarded." We are not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Mazumdar that since sufficient number of ACRs were available in respect of the respondent, SCR in respect the respondent for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90 was not required for the purpose of promotion to the rank of Major General. In our opinion, in the absence of any statutory provisions stipulating the period for which the confidential reports of the officers are to be considered for promotion to the next higher rank, it was for the administrative authorities to decide the period for which the confidential reports on officers would be considered for promotion to the rank of Major General. On the other hand, we find on a reading of paragraph 77 (a) of the SAO is quoted herein below, that the Army Headquarters had the authority to call for such Special Confidential Reports to assess the fitness of an officers for promotion. "77. A special Report may be rendered under the following circumstances : (a) When called for by Army Headquarters or GOC-in-C Command for any specific purpose, eg to assess as Officer's fitness for employment in a particular rank or for promotion." 1.0. Coming now to the submission of Mr. "77. A special Report may be rendered under the following circumstances : (a) When called for by Army Headquarters or GOC-in-C Command for any specific purpose, eg to assess as Officer's fitness for employment in a particular rank or for promotion." 1.0. Coming now to the submission of Mr. Mazumdar based on the last sentence of the Army Headquarter's letter dated 25th July, 1990 that if no Special CRs become due for initiation, NI Forms were to be sent to the Army Headquarter, we are of the opinion that the Army Headquarter's letter dated 25th July, 1990 has to read as a whole for the purpose of appreciating its contents correctly. Paragraph 1 of the said letter made it clear that the Army Headquarter requires SCRs for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90 in respect of the officers mentioned in the Appendix A to the said letter. From this it appears that since ACRs in respect of the officers were not due and would only be due on 1.9.90, SCRs for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90 were required by the Army Headquarters and were to be initiated and sent to the Army Headquarters by 8th August, 1990 positively. Paragraph 2 of the said letter, however, dealt with those cases where interim confidential report (for short ICR) have been raised for part of the period from 1.9.89 to 31.7.90 jn which case SCR for the remaining period was to be initiated and sent to the Army Headquarters. In the last sentence of paragraph 2 of the aforesaid letter however, it is stated that if no SCRs become due for initiation, NI Forms may be forwarded. Reading this sentence along with rest of the letter dated 25th August, 1990, it would mean that where no SCR could be initiated in accordance with the SAO, NI Forms in respect of the officers had to be forwarded to the Military Headquarters for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90 and such construction would be consistent with paragraph 8 of the SAO which states that in case a confidential report is due, but cannot be initiated due to any reason, a non-initiation report will be rendered and forwarded to Army Headquarters. 11. The question therefore is as to whether SCR could be initiated in accordance with the SAO in respect of the respondent for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90. 11. The question therefore is as to whether SCR could be initiated in accordance with the SAO in respect of the respondent for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90. Part II of the SAO is titled as 'Initiation and Endorsement of Confidential Reports' and in our opinion the provisions of the said Part II of the SAO from paragraphs 15 to 36 apply to initiation and endorsement of all types of confidential reports including ACRs and SCRs. Paragraph 16 of the SAO clearly stipulates that the officers reported upon must have physically served under the officer initiating a confidential report atleast 90 days during the period covered by that report and further clarifies that in case of temporary absence due to leave beyond 10 days at a time either of the initiating officer (for short the IO) or of the officer reported upon will not be\reckoned towards physical service. Since the IO under whom the respondent worked was on leave for a period of more than 10 days after 1.9.89 and before his date of retirement on 31.5.90 this period of leave could not be reckoned towards physical service and hence he could not initiate the SCR for the aforesaid period, the respondent having not have completed 90 days physical service under him. Similarly, the new IO took charge only after the retirement of old IO on 1.5.90 and the respondent had not physically served under him for a minimum period of 90 days. In the facts of the present case therefore the IO, old or new, could not initiate the SCR in respect of the respondent for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90. The next question is as to whether the Reviewing Officer (for short the RO) could initiate the SCR in accordance with the SAO. Paragraph 25 of the SAO which directly answers this question is quoted herein below: "25. If required, CRs may also be initiated by the Reviewing Officers, Para 73 below refers." Thus a confidential report may also be initiated by the RO under paragraph 2f which has referred to paragraph 73 of the SAO for this purpose. In other words wherever required CRs could also be initiated by the RO in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 73 of the SAO. Paragraph 73 of the SAO is extracted herein below: "73. In other words wherever required CRs could also be initiated by the RO in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 73 of the SAO. Paragraph 73 of the SAO is extracted herein below: "73. If an IO is unable to initiate an ACR or an ICR which is otherwise due, flu report will be initiated by the RO provided die ratee rendered 90 days physical service under him. However, if the IO is posted out and unable to initiate an ICR no ICR will be initiated by the RO. Approval for initiation of an ACR or ICR by RO will be accorded by the SRO for officiating incumbent." We are therefore of the considered opinion that under paragraph 25 read with paragraph 73 of the SAO, confidential reports including SCR can be initiate by the RO if the following conditions are satisfied (i) it is required (ii) if the 1C is unable to initiate the SCR (iii) the officer reported upon has rendered 90 days physical service under the RO (iv) approval of initiation of SCR by RO is accorded by the SRO. 12. Since as per the Army Headquarters letter dated 27th July, 1990 SCF for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90 in respect of the respondent and other officers named in the Appendix to the letter were required, the first condition for initiator of the SCR of the respondent by the RO was clearly satisfied. We have also held that the IO, new or old, was unable to initiate the SCR. Hence the second condition was satisfied. It is also not disputed that the respondent worked for 202 says under Lt General Dias, the RO, but it is argued by Mr. Mazumdar that the respondent had not put in physical service of 90 days under the RO inasmuch as there was always an IO available, old or new, between the respondent and the RO and as a result the RO did not personally observe the work of the respondent Mr.Mazumdar has relied on paragraph 31 (b) of the SAO in support of his submission that service under the RO is not physical service. Paragraph 31 of the SAO which deals with endorsement by the RO is extracted herein below : "31. Paragraph 31 of the SAO which deals with endorsement by the RO is extracted herein below : "31. Reviewing Officer (RO) as specified in the channel of reporting will b« entitled to endorse the CR under the following conditions : (a) The officer was holding the appointment of RO on the last date covered b) the CR. Such ROs will be known as 'Present ROs'. (b) Present RO and the ratee has served together for a minimum of 75 days This period is not physical service i.e. temporary absence of either the rates of the RO is not to be discounted, for entitlement of endorsement." A reading of paragraph 31 quoted above shows that physical service for a minimum period of 75 days is not required to enable the RO to endorse the confidential reports of the ratee. But as discussed above, under paragraph 73 of the SAO, for initiating a confidential report the ratee ought to have put in physical service of a minimum 90 days under the RO and in our opinion the period of physical service under the RO has to be computed in accordance with paragraph 16 of the SAO. In other words, only the period of temporary absence beyond 10 days at a time of either the ratee or the RO can be excluded from the total service period rendered by the ratee under the RO. We are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Mazumdar that the RO, Lt General Dias, has not personally observed the work of the respondent because we find that in Part III of the SCR dates 10.8.90, against column 15 Lt General Dias has indicated that he had met the respondent during the period under review daily by writing the word 'D'. Thus, the respondent had put in physical service for more than 90 days under the RO, Lt General Dias. Regarding approval by the SRO of such initiation of the SCR by the RO. we find from the records that such approval has been given by the SRO by signal dated 8/9th August, 1990 and by written communication dated 11th August, 1990. Hence the initiation of the SCR dated 10.8.90 on the respondent by the RO Lt General Dias was in accordance with the SAO. 13. Mr. we find from the records that such approval has been given by the SRO by signal dated 8/9th August, 1990 and by written communication dated 11th August, 1990. Hence the initiation of the SCR dated 10.8.90 on the respondent by the RO Lt General Dias was in accordance with the SAO. 13. Mr. Barthakur stated that another ground on which the learned Single Judge held that the SCR dated 10.8.90 initiated by the RO Lt General Dias was technically invalid was that the said SCR had not been endorsed by the NSRO as required by paragraph 87 of the Instructions for Rendition of Confidential Reports for Officers 1989 (for short the Instructions) Mr. Barthakur submitted that it would be cleat from paragraph 3 of the SAO that the Instructions have been issued under the authority of the SAO and the said Instructions are only amplification notes on the SAO and cannot override the SAO. He argued that paragraph 34 of the SAO clearly stipulated that confidential reports of Brigadiers and above would be endorsed by the NSRO only where it is applicable but paragraph 15 of the SAO states that the confidential reports are to be initiated and endorsed in accordance with the channels of reporting as may be prescribed by the MS Branch from time to time and the MS Branch letter dated 24.6.85 laid down the channels of reporting of Brigadier (OPS) Command which did not include a NSRO. Hence, the provisions of paragraph 34 were not applicable to the case of Brigadier (OPS) Command such as the respondent. To our query as to whether in the case of Brigadiers other than (OPS) Command, NSrvO was provided for in he channel of reporting, Mr. Barthakur stated that in some cases of Brigadiers, NSRO was also available in the channel of reporting. 14. Mr. Mazumdar, on the other hand, vehemently argued that the letter dated 24.6.85 of the MS Branch laying down the channel of reporting for Brigadier (OPS) Command had been superseded by the provisions of the SAO by virtue of paragraph 1 of the SAO. He further argued that a reading of the Army HQ letter dated 19.2.91 annexed to the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent ' in the Civil Rule as Annexure P35 would show that all confidential reports art to be endorsed by three reporting-officers. 1O who acts as initiator. He further argued that a reading of the Army HQ letter dated 19.2.91 annexed to the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent ' in the Civil Rule as Annexure P35 would show that all confidential reports art to be endorsed by three reporting-officers. 1O who acts as initiator. RO who acts as the(moderator and SRO who acts as the balancer. But so far as the SCR dated 10.8.90 in respect of the respondent is concerned the same has been endorsed only by two reporting officers, namely the RO and SRO and such endorsement by two officers by the RO and SRO only is contrary to paragraph 87 of the Instructions. Mr. Mazumdar further contended that while the RO Lt General Dias has given a figurative assessment of 5 points, the SRO Lt General had given a figurative assessment of 7 points in respect of the respondent in the said SCR dated 10.8.90 and paragraph 33 of the SAO and paragraph 86 (a) (i) of the Instructions required that in case of 2 points difference a further endorsement has to be made by the NSRO. 15. We do not find any force in the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Mazumdar that the letter dated 24.6.85 of the MS Branch has been superseded by paragraph 1 of the SAO. Paragraph 1 of the SAO states that the SAO supersedes SAO 10/ S/83 and all other orders and instructions on the subject and that the provisions of the SAO would be applicable to all confidential reports initiated on 1.6.89 and thereafter. From the aforesaid language of paragraph 1 of the SAO, we are of the view that the SAO supersedes all existing orders and instructions relating to rendering of confidential reports on officers and it does not supersede MS Branch letter dated 24.6.85 which lays clown the channels of reporting of different officers including the Brigadier (OPS) Command. We find support for our aforesaid view in paragraph 15 and 34 of the SAO which are extracted herein below : "15. Confidential Reports will be initiated and endorsed in accordance with the channels reporting as may be prescribed by the MS Branch from time to time. Any deviation in the laid down channel of reporting may render such a report technically null and void. However, each case will be considered on its merit. Provisions for initiation and endorsement of CRs are given in the succeeding paras. 34. Any deviation in the laid down channel of reporting may render such a report technically null and void. However, each case will be considered on its merit. Provisions for initiation and endorsement of CRs are given in the succeeding paras. 34. Normally, the NSRO will not be required to endorse the CRs. unless he specifically wishes to do so. However. CRs of Brigs and above will be endorsed by SRO and NSRO where applicable." A reading of the paragraph 15 of the SAO quoted above makes it amply clear that the channels of reporting are to be prescribed by the MS Branch and the confidential reports are to be initiated and endorsed in accordance with such channels of reporting and any deviation in laid down channel of reporting may render such as report technically null and void. The channels of reporting laid down in the MS Branch letter dated 24.6.85 for Brigadier (OPS) Command has only provided for IO, RO and the SRO and does not provide - NSRO. Hence, any endorsement by the NSRO on the confidential report of the respondent who was a Brigadier (OPS) Command during the relevant time would be a deviation from the channel of reporting prescribed by the MS Branch and would have rendered the SCR dated 10.8.90 null and void. On a reading of paragraph 34 along with the paragraph 15 of the SAO, therefore, we are of the view that where NSRO was not available in the channels of reporting of a Brigadier as in the case of the respondent, the SCR dated 10.8.90 in respect of the respondent was not to be endorsed by the NSRO and paragraph 87 of the Instructions which has to be read subject to the aforesaid paragraph 15 and 34 was not applicable to the said SCR dated 10.8.90. 16. Paragraph 33 of the SAO on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Mazumdar is extracted herein below : "33. All CRs will be endorsed by the IO and the RO as specified in the channel of reporting. The SRO will be required to endorse the CR under the following conditions : (a) When there is difference of 2 or more marks between the assessment of IO and RO in box Grading. (b) When between IO and RO only one person has endorsed. (c) Outstanding, Low and Below Average assessment by IO and RO. The SRO will be required to endorse the CR under the following conditions : (a) When there is difference of 2 or more marks between the assessment of IO and RO in box Grading. (b) When between IO and RO only one person has endorsed. (c) Outstanding, Low and Below Average assessment by IO and RO. (d) When officers from Arty Engrs and Sigs are recommended for General Cadre. (e) When he specifically wishes to endorse." The language of the aforesaid paragraph would show that it relates to endorsement of confidential report by the SRO and not by the NSRO. Similarly, paragraph 86 (a) (i), of the Instructions which contains amplification notes on the aforesaid paragraph 86 of the SAO also relates to endorsement of a confidential report by the SRO. In the present case, the SCR dated 10.8.90 in respect of the respondent has been endorsed by the SRO and hence paragraphs 33 of the SAO and paragraph 86 (a) (i) of the Instructions have not been violated in any manner as alleged by the respondent. 17. Still another reason given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment for his conclusion that the SCR dated 10.8.90 initiated by Lt General Dias was technically invalid was that the RO was mandatory required to elaborate in the pen picture and support the low figurative assessment of 5 points. According to learned Single Judge, paragraph 113 of the Instructions stated that the purpose of brief comments (pen picture) was to give soul to the skeleton of figurative assessment and hence merely reporting what has been already been covered by the figurative assessment did not serve any useful purpose and the various other qualities of the officer reporting upon as detailed in the paragraph 113 were required to be given in the pen picture, but in the SCR dated 10.8.90 Lt General Dias, the RO, had only stated that the respondent was a fairly capable and competent officer who has professionally a high average caliber arid had functioned very satisfactorily as the Brigadier (OPS). We find that the learned Single Judge has lost sight of paragraph 117 of the Instructions which provides that the box grading given by the reporting officer should generally conform to the assessment by the reporting officer in Personal Qualities and Demonstrated Performance and has failed to appreciate that the figurative assessment of 5 points and the pen picture of 'High Average' were in conformity with the grading of 5 points on most of the items of Personal Qualities and Demonstrated Performance given by Lt General Dias to the respondent in Part II of the SCR dated 10.8.90. Hence, the box grading of 5 and the pen picture of high average caliber given by the Lt General Dias to the respondent are adequately supported by him in the SCR dated 10.8.90. In any case, the fact that Lt General Dias has not given in the pen picture his comments with regard to items other than Personal Qualities and Demonstrated Performance of the respondent in accordance with paragraph 113 of the Instructions may make the said pen picture incomplete, but it does not render the SCR dated 10.8.90 technically invalid because paragraph 15 of the SAO quoted above stipulates that it is only in the case of deviation from the laid down channel of reporting that a report is technically null and void. In the present case, since Lt General Dias was the RO of the respondent in the channej of reporting prescribed by the MS Branch, the SCR dated 10.8.90 given by him in respect of the respondent cannot be held to be technically null and void. 18. Mr. Barthakur then assailed the finding of the learned Single Judge in -the impugned judgment that the SCR dated 10.8.90 given by Lt General Dias in respect of the respondent was inconsistent. He pointed out that out of the 39 officers who had reported on the respondent, 12 officers had graded the respondent as high average and hence the grading of high average given by Lt General Dias to the respondent in his report dated 10.8.90 was not inconsistent. Mr. He pointed out that out of the 39 officers who had reported on the respondent, 12 officers had graded the respondent as high average and hence the grading of high average given by Lt General Dias to the respondent in his report dated 10.8.90 was not inconsistent. Mr. Barthakur further submitted that in any case the respondent had filed a non-statutory complaint against the SCR dated 10.8.90 of Lt General Dias on or about 20'.10.90 and the same has been rejected by the Chief of the Army Staff after considering all aspects of the matter as would be evident from the communication dated 7.3.91 of the MS Branch. 19. Mr. Mazumdar submitted in reply, that the circular dated 10.8.90 of the MS Branch relating to internal assessment of confidential report (Annexure 34 to the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent filed in the Civil Rule) indicated that under the revised system of assessment of confidential reports, inconsistencies in a confidential report ought to be identified by the MS Branch by carrying out a comparison with the profile of the officers based on his confidential reports for previous 5 years. He also relied on the circular dated 5th October, 1990 of the MS Branch relating to objectivity in reporting for his submission that where there was difference of two points in the report of two Reporting Officers, the report is to be treated as inconsistent. He pointed out that during the 5 years prior to the period from 1.9.89 to 31.7.90 the performance of the respondent had been graded in his ACRs as above average. Similarly, for the period 1.9.89 to 31.7.90, the SRO of the respondent Lt General Grewal had graded the performance of the respondent above average by giving a box grading of 7. But in the SCR dated 10.8.90 the RO of the respondent Lt General Dias had graded the performance of the respondent as above average by giving the box grading of 5. Hence the report of Lt General Dias has been rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of inconsistency. 20. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has exceeded the powers of judicial review of a Court in respect of matters which are within the exclusive domain of the administrative authorities. Hence the report of Lt General Dias has been rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of inconsistency. 20. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has exceeded the powers of judicial review of a Court in respect of matters which are within the exclusive domain of the administrative authorities. Confidential Reports are initiated or endorsed by reporting officers on the basis of their observation of the work of the officer reported upon and in the absence of maiafides on the part of the reporting officer ought not to be interfered with by the Court. In the present case, the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the allegations of malafide made by the respondent against the RO Lt General Dias had not been established. Inconsistencies, if any, in a confidential report could be corrected in a representation filed before the competent administrative authority. The respondent had in fact filed a non-statutory complaint against the SCR dated 10.8.90 given by Lt General Dias but the same had been rejected by the Chief of the Army on the ground that it lacked substance as would be evident from the communication dated 7.3.91 of the MS Branch, a copy has been annexed in the Civil Rule as Annexure P-8. Thereafter, the Court could not make its own assessment of the work of the respondent for the purpose of finding out as to whether the SCR dated 10.8.90 given by Lt General Dias was inconsistent. The learned Single Judge, therefore, could not have quashed the SCR dated 10.8.90 in respect of the respondent given by Lt General Dias on the ground that it was inconsistent. 21. It was finally urged by Mr.Barthakur relying on several decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in the case of Major General IPS Dewan vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 383 that in matters of selection of officers for promotion to higher rank, the Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Selection Board and cannot direct promotion of an officer who has not been found fit for promotion by the Selection Board. In the present case, the respondent was considered for promotion to the rank of Major General by the Selection Board in its meeting held on 21/22 September, 1990 and was not found fit for promotion in the 'Command and Staff stream in the rank of Major General and was found suitable for promotion in the 'Staff only' stream in the rank of Major General. Thereafter, the respondent was again considered by the first Review Board which met on 24/25 April, 1992 by which time the respondent has earned two more confidential reports, and yet the first Review Board did not find the respondent suitable for 'Command and Staff stream. Finally, the respondent was considered by the Review Board which met on 18th September, 1993 by which time the respondent earned two more confidential reports but the respondent was not found fit for 'Command and Staff stream and his case for moving into the said stream in the rank of Major General was finally rejected. Mr. Barhakur further contended that no allegations of malafide or bias have been made against any'member of the Selection/Review Board and in accordance with the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the decisions of the Selection/Review Board not to select the respondent for promotion to the 'Command and Staff stream in the rank of Major General by holding that the respondent is deemed to have been selected along with Major General IS Shawney and Major General RK Shawney. 22. Mr. Mazumdar, however, urged that the confidential reports of the respondent would indicate that he was a very high caliber officer and it was only the SCR dated 10.8.90 of Lt General Dias grading-the respondent as high average with 5 points which constituted a single aberration in the otherwise brilliant career profile of the respondent. The decisions of the Selection/Review Board not to select the respondent for promotion to the rank of Major General in the 'Command and Staff stream was therefore not correct. Mr. Mazumdar also cited several decisions of the Apex Court in support of his aforesaid argument. 23. The decisions of the Selection/Review Board not to select the respondent for promotion to the rank of Major General in the 'Command and Staff stream was therefore not correct. Mr. Mazumdar also cited several decisions of the Apex Court in support of his aforesaid argument. 23. We have carefully applied our mind to the several decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties and we do not consider it necessary to deal with the said decisions because it is now too well settled that in cases of promotion based on merit it is the Selection Board which has to assess the merit of the officers and make its recommendations and in exercise of its powers of judicial review, the Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the recommendations of the Selection Board. The limited role of the Court in such cases is to ensure that the Selection Board has acted without malafide or bias against an officer and has accorded him fair treatment while considering his case for promotion. In the case of Major General IPS Dewan vs. Union of India (supra) the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to non selection of an officer by the Selection \ Board for promotion to the rank of Lt General in the Army with the following reasons : "So for as the non-selection of the appellant by the Selection Board for promotion to the rank of Lt General we see no illegality in the procedure adopted by them. We have also perused the work sheets relating to all four officers considered. Not only the appellant but two other seniors to the person selected ' were overlooked. The selection, it may be noted, was not based on seniority, but on merit. There is no allegation of malafides or bias against the members of the Selection Board. All that can be and is suggested against the process of selection is that the Board took into consideration the aforesaid adverse remarks. Assuming that the said remarks were indeed taken into consideration, the non-selection of the appellant cannot be faulted. Firstly, it cannot be said that the said remarks alone were the cause of non-selection, the non-selection of appellant appears to be based on an overall assessment. Secondly, the statutory complaint preferred by the appellant against the said remarks have been rejected by the Central Government, no doubt subsequent to the said consideration. Firstly, it cannot be said that the said remarks alone were the cause of non-selection, the non-selection of appellant appears to be based on an overall assessment. Secondly, the statutory complaint preferred by the appellant against the said remarks have been rejected by the Central Government, no doubt subsequent to the said consideration. As stated above, the situation may have been different had the said complaint been upheld partly or wholly. In the circumstances, the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the acts and proceedings of the Selection Board." 24. We have perused the records of the selection in the present case and we find that the Selection Board met on 21/22 September, 1990 and considered 15 confidential reports of the respondent covering the period 1977 to July 1990 in the rank of Lt Colonel to Brigadier as well as the War Report of 1971-72 and recommended the respondent for promotion to the rank of Major General 'Staff only" stream. In the Defence Ministry, however, an objection of the selection of the respondent for promotion was raised on the ground that the RO Lt General Dias had graded him over all high average and had graded him similarly in almost all the qualities but the Secretary of the Selection Board met the said objection stating that the respondents over all profile was above average. It is thus clear that the Selection Board which met on 21/22 September. 1990 did not only consider the SCR dated 10.8.90 for the period 1.9.89 to 3 1,7.90 but the over all profile of the respondent from 1977 to July, 1990. Further the opening address of the Chairman of the Selection Board produced before us contains a note of caution that the Selection Board must look out for moderation of Superior Reporting Officer (SRO) particularly in case where officers had been under ­assessed. Thus assuming that the respondent had been under-assessed as high average with box grading of 5 by the RO, Lt General Dias, in the SCR dated 10.8.90, the SRO Lt General GS Grewal had moderated the said under-assessment of the respondent by grading him as above average with a box grading of 7. The proceedings of the Selection Board indicate that Lt General GS Grewal was himself a member of the Selection Board. The proceedings of the Selection Board indicate that Lt General GS Grewal was himself a member of the Selection Board. We therefore hold that the said moderation of the under-assessment, if any, made by the RO Lt General Dias had been taken into consideration by the Selection Board when it met on 21/22 September, 1990. We also find from the records that thereafter the respondent was considered by two Review Boards on 24/25 April, 1992 and 18th April, 1993 along with his confidential reports for the periods after 31st July, 1990 and yet the said two Review Boards did not find the respondent suitable for being moved into 'Command and Staff stream to the rank of Major. There are no allegations of malafide or bias against the members of the Selection Board and the Review Boards. On these facts as revealed from the records, it is difficult for us to come to the conclusion that the respondent has not been treated fairly by the Selection/Review Boards so as to call for interference in their recommendations not to promote him for 'Command and Staff stream in the rank of Major General. The learned Single Judge, therefore, exceeded his jurisdiction in directing that the respondent was deemed to have been selected along with Major General IS Shawney and Major General RK Shawney. 25. At the end of the hearing of this appeal, it was stated by Mr. Mazumdar that the respondent has been appointed as Chief of Army Staff and has also officiated as Corps Commander and in the ACR for the year 1993-94 he has earned above average grading which would go to show that the authorities have recognised his potential for 'Command and Staff assignment although they have not promoted him as Major General in the Command and Staff stream. As a special case, therefore, the respondent ought to be promoted to the rank of Lt General under the rules applicable to non-general Cadre. He submitted that alternatively the respondent should be given command of a decision for 18 months by extension of his service so that he can earn two more reports and thereafter the Selection Board can consider his case promotion to the rank of Lt General as has been done in the case of other officers. We do not think that these reliefs can be granted by the Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. We do not think that these reliefs can be granted by the Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. It is however, for the authorities to consider whether such reliefs could be granted to the respondent in accordance with rules or instructions that may be in force. For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.9.95 in Civil Rule No.51 (K) of 1994, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave it to the parties to bear their own costs.