Dismissed¶52

Ex-Sub Singamala Krishna Reddy v. Union of India

Madras HC6 Feb 2025WP/23774/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC dismisses writ upholding Armed Forces Tribunal rejection; ex-serviceman Subedar denied Subedar Major promotion; statutory complaint delayed disposal beyond sixty days held not a ground for retrospective promotion; DPC found no Subedar Major vacancy in 2015; Honorary Commission considered thrice, not selected on relative merit; Article 226 Certiorarified Mandamus; W.P.No.23774 of 2024; O.A.No.183 of 2017; 2025:MHC:356; 06.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Promotion per se cannot be claimed as an absolute right by any employee; however, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. All promotions are to be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable regulations, and the Departmental Promotion Committee must ensure all eligible persons in the order of seniority are considered when drawing the panel. ¶46

Ex-Sub Singamala Krishna Reddy Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who contended he stood at Serial No.1 in the Promotion Board merit list for Subedar Major, was denied promotion without valid reason while juniors were promoted, entitling him to retrospective promotion and monetary benefits. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

Mere delayed disposal of the statutory complaint would not provide a ground to seek the relief of promotion with retrospective effect; the petitioner did not establish that the delay entitled him to such relief.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

¶46

Key takeaways

The petitioner was due for promotion in 2015 to the rank of Subedar Major, but no vacancy in that rank was available and he was therefore not considered at that point; on earlier occasions he was considered thrice for Honorary Commission but was not selected due to relative merit.ratio¶48
The petitioner was unable to establish that any of his juniors was promoted over and above his seniority or in violation of the applicable promotion regulations; absent such proof, the relief sought was rightfully rejected by the Armed Forces Tribunal.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S.M. Subramaniam J., authoring; bench including K. Rajasekar J.; 06.02.2025; W.P.No.23774 of 2024; Neutral Citation 2025:MHC:356): Dismissed the writ petition of Ex-Sub Singamala Krishna Reddy challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal (Regional Bench, Chennai) order dated 17.03.2023 in O.A.No.183 of 2017, which had rejected his statutory complaint seeking promotion to Subedar Major / Honorary Lieutenant with retrospective effect and monetary benefits. Held: promotion cannot be claimed as an absolute right, though consideration for promotion is a fundamental right to be governed strictly by applicable regulations; the petitioner was due for promotion in 2015 but no Subedar Major vacancy existed, and he had been considered thrice for Honorary Commission without selection on relative merit; he could not establish that any junior was promoted over his seniority or in breach of regulations, nor that disposal of the statutory complaint beyond the sixty-day limit entitled him to retrospective promotion. Tribunal order stands confirmed; writ dismissed, no costs.

¶1

2025:MHC:356

¶2

W.P.No.23774 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 06.02.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P.No.23774 of 2024

¶9

Ex-Sub, Singamala Krishna Reddy No.JC-819494 'L' S/o Singamala Chengal Reddy .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

Union of India rep.by the Secretary Ministry of Defence Government of India

¶12

South Block

¶13

New Delhi 110 011

¶14

The Chief of Army Staff Integrated Head Quarters of MoD (Army) South Block

¶15

New Delhi 110 011

¶16

The Provost Marshal Provost Marshal's Office AG's Branch Integrated Head Quarters of MoD (Army) DHQ Post

¶17

New Delhi 110 011

¶18

Page 1 of 8

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.23774 of 2024

¶21

The Office in Charge

¶22

Sena Police Corps, Abhilekh Karyalaya Corps of Military Police Records Pin-900493 C/o-56 APO

¶23

The Commanding Officer No.54 Infantry Division Provost Unit Pin-907854 C/o 56 APO

¶24

.. Respondents

¶25

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 17.03.2023 in O.A.No.183 of 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce records with respect to 'DPC Proceedings' dated 03.11.2015 held for selection / promotion to 'Subedar Major' rank along with merit list and the Selection Process for award of 'Honorary Commission' on the occasion of 'Republic Day, 2015' (26.01.2015) for judicial scrutiny, consequently direct the respondents to consider promotion of the petitioner to the rank of 'Subedar Major' or 'Honorary Lieutenant' on active service w.e.f. respective effective date with all consequential benefits.

¶26

For Respondents :: Mr.C.Kulanthaivel Senior Panel Counsel

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

¶29

The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the order dated 17.03.2023 passed in O.A.No.183 of 2017 on the file of the Armed Forces

¶30

_____________ Page 2 of 8_

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.23774 of 2024

¶33

Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai.

¶34

The petitioner was enrolled in Indian Army on 15.07.1986 and was promoted to the rank of Subedar on 01.12.2013. The petitioner states that he was deployed on UN mission as JCO and was in Serial No.1 in the merit list of Promotion Board for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major. But he was not granted promotion as per the seniority and thus the petitioner preferred a statutory complaint on 29.04.2016. The statutory complaint was rejected in proceeding dated 16.12.2016. The said proceedings came to be challenged in the original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

¶35

The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that as per the regulations, the statutory complaint should be disposed of within a period of sixty days. However, in the present case, the order of rejection impugned in the original application was passed beyond the period of sixty days and therefore it is liable to be set aside. Further it is contended that juniors of the writ petitioner were promoted to the rank of Subedar Major and the case of the petitioner was not considered without any valid reason. Thus the

¶36

Page 3 of 8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.23774 of 2024

¶39

petitioner is entitled for retrospective promotion on par with his junior and monetary benefits are to be paid, since the petitioner was discharged from service on 31.07.2016.

¶40

The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of the petitioner and found that vacancies were not available during the relevant point of time. Secondly, the petitioner was considered thrice for Honorary Commission, but did not get selected due to relative merit. Therefore the case of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the regulations and the Tribunal rightly rejected the application.

¶41

Fact remains that the petitioner was in Serial No.1 for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major. However, the said fact was disputed by the respondents.

¶42

The legal principles governing the matter of promotion are that

¶43

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.23774 of 2024

¶46

promotion per se cannot be claimed as an absolute right by any employee. However, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. All promotions are to be granted strictly in accordance with the regulations applicable. While undertaking the process of promotion, the Departmental Promotion Committee has to ensure that all the eligible persons in the order of seniority are considered and accordingly draw a panel for grant of promotion to the higher post.

¶47

In the context of the legal principles, the case of the petitioner

¶48

reveals that he was due for promotion in the year 2015 to the rank of Subedar Major. But no vacancy in the rank of Subedar Major was available and therefore he was not considered for promotion at that point of time. On earlier occasion, the petitioner was considered thrice for Honorary Commission, but did not get selected due to relative merit. The petitioner was unable to establish that any of his junior was promoted over and above his seniority or in violation of regulations applicable for promotion. In the absence of any proof to that effect, the relief as such sought for by the petitioner was rejected rightfully by the Armed Forces Tribunal. The

¶49

_____________ Page 5 of 8_

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.23774 of 2024

¶52

petitioner was discharged from service on 31.07.2016 and the application was filed after his retirement. However, the statutory complaint was filed during the period when he was in service. Mere delayed disposal of the statutory complaint would not provide a ground to seek the relief of promotion with retrospective effect. The petitioner has not established that the ground of delay would entitle him to the relief of promotion. Thus, in any angle, the case of the petitioner is unable to be considered and more so, the Tribunal has proceeded with the order in the right perspective and in consonance with the legal principles established on promotion. Accordingly, the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal in O.A.No.183 of 2017 stands confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶53

Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) Neutral citation : yes 06.02.2025 ss To

¶54