Summary
The Court upheld the selection of two Army Commanders after examining the appointment record. Although the post was a selection post and seniority created no vested right, seniority could remain relevant; the officers’ service profiles had been considered and the competent Cabinet committee approved the appointments.
Issues
- Whether the appointments improperly rested solely on seniority rather than selection.
- Whether the recommendation procedure or Cabinet approval requirements were breached.
Provisions considered
- Rule 6(1); First Schedule, Item 1 and Annexure I, Item 14, Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet was the competent decision-maker. It received the material facts and approved the appointments; no breach was established. (¶ 27)
Held
- Fitness in every respect and the applicable service criteria made Army Commander a selection post. Seniority alone conferred no entitlement, but it could legitimately inform selection given the experience and prior rigorous assessments of officers at that level. (¶¶ 13, 18, 20, 21)
- The file showed consideration of seven service profiles by the Chief of Army Staff and forwarding of their records to the Defence Minister. The Cabinet committee was informed that five officers met the prescribed criteria. The selections were not shown to rest exclusively on seniority. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- The temporary discipline and vigilance ban caused the proposal concerning the third respondent to be held pending further information; approval followed its removal. The record did not establish the alleged procedural illegality. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 24, 25, 26)
- The reference in the Corps Commander policy to suggesting two senior eligible officers per Army Commander vacancy was directory. Considering seven officers caused the appellant no prejudice. (¶¶ 14, 28)
- Despite the parties’ retirement, the Court determined the rank-related grievance on its merits and found no ground to interfere. (¶¶ 29, 30)
Result
Appeal dismissed on merits; Armed Forces Tribunal’s rejection of the appointment challenge sustained. No costs.