Union of India challenged an Armed Forces Tribunal order in a promotion empanelment matter but restricted its challenge to one factual finding about marks comparison. Counsel sought withdrawal with liberty to seek review before the Tribunal, which was permitted with the review scope limited to the marks-comparison question.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, CGSC with Major Anish Muralidhar (Army)
versus
COL VS KAHLON VSM .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey and Mr. Nirvikar Singh, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
%
26.11.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
This case is being taken up today as 25 November 2025 was declared as holiday on the occasion of 350th anniversary of ‘Guru Teg Bahadur’s Martyrdom Day’.
1. After some hearing, Dr. Mahndiyan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, restricts his challenge to the impugned order dated 25 July 2025, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1 , to the following finding, contained in para 60 thereof:
“However, it is essential to note that consequent to the disposal of the second statutory complaint, the applicant’s marks were higher than the last empanelled officer of his original batch i.e., 1997 batch.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17883/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 1 of 3
2. According to Dr. Mehndiyan, this finding is incorrect.
3. It is an admitted position that the second statutory complaint was disposed of in October 2023, whereafter the case of the respondent was considered in June 2024, during which marks were awarded to him.
4. The finding of the AFT is that these marks, as awarded to the respondent, were higher than the marks awarded to the last empanelled candidate of the 1997 batch who had been considered in June 2022.
5. Dr. Mehndiyan, on instructions, disputes the correctness of this finding.
6. If a finding rendered by the AFT is erroneous, the remedy with the petitioners would be to move the AFT by way of review. Dr. Mehndiyan, therefore, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move the AFT by way of review.
7. We make it clear that the scope of review would be restricted to the question of whether in the consideration of the respondent in June 2024, the marks which were awarded to him were or were not higher than the marks awarded to the last empanelled candidate of the 1997 batch in June 2022.
1 “the AFT” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17883/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 2 of 3
8. If they were, the order of the AFT would remain undisturbed.
9. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs.
10. We respectfully request the AFT, should the review be filed, to decide it as expeditiously as possible.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
NOVEMBER 26, 2025 dsn
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 17883/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 20:26:40
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the AFT's finding that the respondent's marks awarded in June 2024 exceeded those of the last empanelled officer of the 1997 batch was erroneous.
Union of India and Ors
Col VS Kahlon VSM
C. Hari Shankar
Om Prakash Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
