The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by an Lt. Colonel challenging his non-promotion to Colonel rank. The Court held that courts cannot intervene in selection merits of defense services absent mala fides, irrelevant considerations, or non-impleadment of rivals, distinguishing army promotion from other government services.
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
~-+
,.
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 449
.:
SURINDER SHUKLA
v. UNION OF INDIA (C.A. No. 250 of 2008)
JANUARY 9, 2008
A
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] .
~
+
i
Armed Forces:
Promotion - Appellant-Lt. Colonel, considerecffor c promotion to rank of Colonel a number of times'- Not selected on all such occasions ~ Complaints filed by him rejected ..... Writ petition by Appellant praying entitlement for promotion on ground that his service record was better than that of his colleagues superseding him - Dismissed - Justification of'-Held: Justified - Selection board had not recommended nameD of Appellant for promotion, which was approved by. the Chief of Army Staff - Court cannot exercise power of judicial;r:eview to enter into merit of the decision - Moreover, there was no allegation of mala fide against members of Selection Soard - Colleagues of Appellant who superseded him were furthermore E not impleaded as parties in the writ petition - In their absence, the writ petition could not have been effectively adjudicated upon - Considerations applicable to other Government servants in matter of promotion may not be applicable in ?Jrmy services -Administrative Law- Judicial Review- Constitution F of/ndia, 1950 -Art. 226 - Service Law.
Appellant, Lt. Colonel, was considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel a number of times but not selected on all such occasions. Complaihts filed by him were rejected by the Competent authority. Appellant filed writG petition contending that he should have been promoted as he had a better service record than that of his colleagues who superseded him. High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present.appeal.
.
449
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
450
A Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The post of 'Colonel' is a selection post. A large number of factors are required to be taken into consideration therefor, viz.: i) Annual Confidential Reports 8profile of the officer in the relevant ranks;ii)War Reports; iii) Battle Awards and Honours earned by the officers ·during his service; iv) Professional courses done by the officer, his performance during the course and grading obtained therein; v) Special Achievements and weaknesses; vi) Appointments held by the officers C including criteria command/staff appointments; vii) Disciplinary background and punishments and viii) Employability and potential including consistent recommendations for promotion to the next higher rank. [Para 9] [454-E, F, G, H; 455-A, B]
D
1.2. Considering the comparative batch merit, if the selection board did not recommend the name of the appellant for promotion to the rank of Colonel which appears to have been approved by the Chief of Army Staff, E it is not for the court exercising power of judicial review
to enter into the merit of the decision. The selection board was constituted by senior officers presided over by an officer of the rank of Lt. General. [Para 10] [455-B, C]
1.3. Appellant moreover did not allege any mala fide F against the members of the Selection Board. What impelled the selection board not to recommend his case but the names of other two officers is not known. [Para 10) [455-D, E]
~
1.4. The colleagues of Appellant who superseded G him were furthermore not impleaded as parties in the writ petition. In their absence, the writ petition could not have been effectively adjudicated upon. [Para 11] [455-E, F]
Union of India and Ors. v Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan H and Anr (2000) 5 SCALE 327 and Amrik Singh v Union of
451
SURINDER SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA [S.B. SINHA, J]
r-+
India and Ors. (2001) 10 sec 424 - relied on.
A
B
~
~
Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 sc 1393 : 1989 Supp (1) sec 416)- relied on.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 250 c of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.1 ;2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in C.W.P. No. 3639/2005.
...i
Surinder Shukla, Appellant-In-Person.
Kiran Bhardwaj and B.K. Prasad (for D.S. Mehra) for the Respondents .
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
j.
~
E
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
Yet again in December, 2000, his case was considered G for promotion but he was not found fit therefor. He thereafter filed a number of statutory complaints. By an order dated 6.07.2004, his statutory complaint dated 16.02.2004 was rejected, stating:
H
"Statutory Complaint dated 16 Feb 2004 against non-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
452
"'
~
A empanelment for promotion submitted by IC-30957 N Lt. Col. Surender Shukla, AEC has been perused alongwith other relevant document regarding his complaints available at this HQ. It is observed that the instant complaint is the second one against the same SBs without any fresh facts B meriting reconsideration of the case. Further, the order dated 17 Jul 2003 of the Hon'ble High Court of MP in WP No. 2229 of 2003 of Brig. J.K. Nagpal Vs. Union of India and ors., quoted by the officer in his complaint as fresh facts is not applicable in the officer's case, as per legal c opinion obtained by this HQ.
A
c
+- ....
)..
D
"G. Because the career profile of the Petitioner is unblemished and better than that of his colleagues who superseded the Petitioner. Two of such officers are:-
F
Name Service No.
-\
Col. A.P.S. Panwar IC30661-P
(one above the petitioner)
G
Col. V.K. Sinha IC30972-H
(one below the petitioner)
Hence it is submitted that the comparative study of the Career Profiles of these officers with that of the petitioner can be of much help for deciding the present H Writ Petition."
453
SURINDER SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA [S.B. SINHA, J]
_, ·'I • -+ "'1.
"
"2. The assessment of officers in ACR was regulated by SAO 3/S/89 (which has now been replaced by Army Order 45/2001) and other relevant policies at any given time. B The gradings are numerical from 1 to 9 (overall as well as in personal qualities and performance variables in different qualities) and in the form of pen picture also. The entire assessment of an officer in any ACR consists of assessment of three different reporting officers whose c assessments are independent of each other.
It was further averred:
.1-
•-y
"4. In the instant case the petitioner was considered forF promotion from the rank of Lt Col to the rank of Col by No 3 Selection Board as follows:-
Look Year Result (i) Fresh Case Jun 97 'Z' Non-empanelled G (ii) First Review Dec 97 Withdrawn (iii)· Final Review Jun 98 Withdrawn (iv) First Review Dec 98 'Z' Non-empanelled (v) Final Review Dec 2000 -do-" H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
454
._ ~ • .'
I=
A 6. Appellant appearing in person inter alia submitted that his service records being better than that of his batchmates, viz., Col. A.P.S. Panwar and Col. V.K: Sinha, he shou"ld have been promoted.
We may notice that before the High Court another contention by the appellant was raised, viz., that adverse D remarks, if any, were not communicated to him. The High Court opined that merely because he was not selected to the post, the same did not mean that he had been downgraded.
_...
We have, however, noticed hereinbefore that the notice Ewas issued by this Court on limited ground.
(i) Annual Confidential Reports profile of the officer in F the relevant ranks.
~
y•
•
H
455
SURINDER SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA [S.B. SINHA, J]
lili.
• -l
;.
--\
Appellant moreover did not allege any mala fide against E the members of the Selection Board. What impelled the selection board not to recommend his case but the names of other two officers is not known.
G
" ... It is a well-known principle of administrative law that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from . consideration and that no relevant aspect has been H
456
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
...
A ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such. In that B view of the matter, we think there is no justification for the High Court to have interfered with the order made by the Government."
c
B.B.B.
Appeal dismissed.
-..,
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could exercise judicial review under Article 226 to substitute its own opinion of merit over a promotion decision where the selection board did not recommend the appellant.
Whether peculiarities of defense services allow considerations applicable to other government servants to apply to army promotion cases.
Whether non-impleadment of superseded colleagues prevents effective adjudication of a promotion writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and Ors. v Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh KadyanRelied on¶126
[2000] 5 SCALE 327: (2000) 6 SCC 698 · Who else cites this
Amrik Singh v Union of India and Ors.Relied on¶134
(2001) 10 SCC 424 · Who else cites this
Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India and othersRelied on¶136
AIR 1989 sc 1393: 1989 Supp (1) sec 416 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surinder Shukla
Union of India
S.B. Sinha
Harjit Singh Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
