Summary
The Coast Guard promotion selection was valid under the administrative ACR criteria in force when the DPC met. This was not a retrospective amendment of statutory promotion rules. The successor reviewing officer could act under the retirement exception, and allegations of manipulation were unfounded. The officer was protected against victimisation for litigating.
Issues
- Which administrative ACR criteria governed the July 2009 DPC.
- Whether the successor could review ACRs before observing the officer for three months.
Provisions considered
- Rule 2(d), Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986The Director General could issue the relevant Coast Guard Order; this ACR-criteria change required no separate Defence Ministry approval. (¶ 39–43)
Held
- The Court modified its earlier withdrawal order to permit a fresh SLP after review failed, making these appeals maintainable without deciding the broader referred question. (¶ 30–33)
- There was no statutory-rule amendment or delayed DPC. The administrative procedure prevailing on the DPC date applied, so CGO 02/09 governed rather than CGO 02/05. The change followed a longstanding process and did not establish selective favouritism. (¶¶ 37–43, 48–49)
- Paragraph 54 of CGO 04/05 permitted successor review where the predecessor had retired or was unavailable. The request covering numerous officers supplied the relevant notation purpose, and its formal omission was inconsequential here; prejudice was not shown. (¶ 44–48)
Result
Union appeals and modification application allowed; High Court orders set aside and the officer’s appeal dismissed, without costs. Future promotion consideration directed in accordance with merit and law, without victimisation for filing the petition.