Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 59 (RAJ)

WG CDR D. K. Saeena (RETD. ) v. Union of India

2003-01-16

ANIL DEV SINGH, RAJESH BALIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3076/1998 dated 11th November, 2002. 2. The appellant was commissioned as Medical Officer in the Army Medical Core. After serving for 15 years he was eligible for being promoted to the rank of Colonel. The appellant was considered for promotion in the years 1996, 1997 and 1998. The Board, however, did not consider the appellant fit for promotion. Accordingly, he was not promoted. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not promoting him, filed a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by a detailed order. The appellant not being satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has filed the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was fit for promotion and ought to have been given a grading of 8 marks. According to him, the appellants was not shown the ACRs and in case the ACRs would have been shown to him, he would have made effort to improve. On the basis of these submissions the appellant seeks setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. The contention that the appellant ought to have been given the Grading of 8 marks, was not raised in the writ petition. Despite the fact that the question was not raised in the writ petition, the learned counsel in support of his submissions, invited our attention to the letter of the Head Quarter SWAC IAF dated 10th July, 1996. He placed emphasis on para 3 thereof. Para 3 reads as under : "3. In the medical officers selection, the numerical grading given in the ACR is the only criteria for promotion. It is, therefore, suggested that medical and dental officers who are in the promotion zone and considered fit for promotion to the next rank should not be assessed lower than 8 marks." 5. He also invited our attention to Extract of Presentation of Commanders Conference by DGMS (AIR). He has placed reliance on para 4 thereof. Para 4 reads as follows :Promotion : Medical Officers 4. A new promotion policy has been implemented for Medical, Dental and Nursing Officers of the Armed Forces from Feb. 1996. He also invited our attention to Extract of Presentation of Commanders Conference by DGMS (AIR). He has placed reliance on para 4 thereof. Para 4 reads as follows :Promotion : Medical Officers 4. A new promotion policy has been implemented for Medical, Dental and Nursing Officers of the Armed Forces from Feb. 1996. It has resulted in certain adverse effects on the AF MOs. Out of total 11 Gp Capts exposed to the promotion Board on 12 Mar, 96 for promotion, only one officer has made the grade. Out of 51 Colonels form the Army exposed to the board, 17 have been selected while out of three Naval Officers one has been successful. It is mainly due to large variation in marking standards between the Army and the Air Force. Poor selection for promotion for AF MOs' is highly demoralising to the individual and is against the interest of IAF and the IAF will loose its own well trained, experienced Aviation Medicine Specialists and MOs. Since numerical grading is the only criteria for promotion, it is suggested that any Medical or Dental Officer who is considered fit for promotion to the next rank should not be assessed lower than 8 marks. This fact will have to be dismissed to the 10 level." 6. A reading of the letter dated 10th July 1996 and para 4 of the Presentation to Commanders Conference shows that the numerical grading, which was suggested, was not in the nature of a mandate to the Initiating Officer. It was merely suggested that the Medical or Dental Officers, who were considered fit for promotion to the next rank, should not be assessed lower than 8 marks. 7. It is not the case of appellant, either in the writ petition, or in the ROG which was submitted by him, that he was fit for promotion. It is for the first time that this submission is being raised before us. The submission has to be noticed, to be rejected. 8. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is 'dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******