Summary
The Supreme Court held that appointment as DGMS (Army) required assessment of inter se seniority and suitability, rather than treating seniority as decisive. Nevertheless, the actual process unfairly excluded the senior-most eligible officer without a proper comparative assessment. The competing appointment remained quashed, but the Tribunal’s direction to appoint the respondent outright was replaced by reconsideration by the Raksha Mantri.
Issues
- How the circular’s criterion of inter se seniority and suitability governed appointment as DGMS (Army).
- Whether the actual assessment and the Tribunal’s direction for immediate appointment could stand.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 2(i), Ministry of Defence administrative instructions dated 10 July 1992Interpreted inter se as qualifying both seniority and suitability. Eligible officers’ suitability required comparative assessment in light of earlier service experience, with due weight and preference to seniority as explained by the Court. (¶¶ 13, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Held
- The circular contemplated comparative suitability for these high-ranking posts; its words could not be reduced to seniority-cum-suitability with seniority decisive and suitability secondary. Seniority still required due weight, including preference to the competent senior-most officer in the terms explained by the Court. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- Although that interpretation favoured the Union’s legal submission, the decision-making process did not properly apply it. The earlier note favoured seniority, while the later note changed approach after the respondent’s promotion became known. It did not undertake the required inter se assessment and unfairly relied on lack of headquarters exposure without adequately considering relevant command experience. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49)
- The rival appointment warranted quashing, but an outright appointment direction was inappropriate under the governing comparative criterion. The matter was remitted to the Raksha Mantri for fair and objective consideration with the judgment and recorded findings placed before her forthwith; the Court expressed the expectation of a decision within a week. (¶¶ 49, 50)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Quashing of Lt. General Sanjiv Chopra’s appointment sustained; direction appointing the respondent set aside. Matter remitted to the Raksha Mantri for fresh consideration.