The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's order upholding the rejection of a petitioner's claim for promotion to Subedar Major and honorary commission. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's reasoning that the petitioner lacked merit in the designated selection lists.
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.
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 16.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.29739 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.29348 of 2023
M.Sadasivam
.... Petitioner
vs
Page 1/10
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order dated 25.11.2022 passed in O.A.No.81 of 2020 on the file of the learned Armed Force Tribunal and Letter AAD/651/CPGRAMS/105/ESM CELL dated 06.03.2020 issued by the 5th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents issue part II order for the period from 07.07.2016 to 21.02.2018 and also grant Honorary Commission/Rank to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Amritraj
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kumarasamy, Senior Panel Counsel for R1 to R6
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2022, passed in O.A.No.81 of 2020, on the file of the learned Armed
Page 2/10
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
Force Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal confirmed the order of rejection passed by fifth respondent dated 06.03.2020. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to the respondents to issue part II order for the period from 07.07.2016 to 21.02.2018 and also grant Honorary Commission/Rank to the petitioner.
and representation of the petitioner stating that the petitioner was considered in the year 2017 and 2018 by the departmental promotion committee. However, he was not merited in the first and second look.
Page 3/10
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
Page 4/10
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
Page 5/10
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
petitioner's unit two years in advance for checking correctness and counter signature of Commanding Officer. The grant of Hony Commission is a merit based selection carried out based on overall service profile of JCOs. Eligible profiles are forwarded through respective Command Hqrs on Recommendation Roll. The Recommendation Rolls sent on two occasions in respect of the petitioner was forwarded. But the petitioner's name was not promulgated in the Gazette notification for awardees on both the occasions. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner did not meet the required merit criteria. After retirement of the petitioner, his name was submitted to the concerned authority for consideration of Honorary Rank vide letter dated 26.04.2019 and accordingly, he was awarded Hony Sub Maj on retirement. The learned Panel counsel therefore would submit that the order of the Tribunal is based on entire service records of the petitioner and the well reasoned order needs no interference of this court.
the materials available on record.
Page 6/10
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
Page 7/10
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
(J.N.B., J.) (N.M., J.) 16.10.2023
sk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Room No.227 B Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011.
2.The Chief of the Army Staff, Army Head Quarters, Integrated Head Quarters of MoD (Army), DHQ Post South Block, New Delhi 110 001.
Page 8/10
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
Page 9/10
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
J. NISHA BANU, J. and N.MALA, J.
sk
W.P.No.29739 of 2023
16.10.2023
Page 10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Armed Forces Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's claim for promotion and honorary commission?
Whether the petitioner suffered any injustice due to non-consideration for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major?
Whether the impugned orders of the Departmental Promotion Committee regarding merit were passed arbitrarily?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N/AReferred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Sadasivam
Union of India
The Chief of the Army Staff
The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts
J.NISHA BANU
N.MALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
