Summary
The Supreme Court set aside an Armed Forces Tribunal direction to frame a separate promotion policy for JAG (Air) and continue the officer beyond retirement pending consideration under it. The Tribunal exceeded its statutory role. The officer’s challenge to the method of promotion also failed because he raised it only after participating unsuccessfully.
Issues
- Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal could compel a new promotion policy and continuation beyond superannuation.
- Whether the officer could challenge the selection method after unsuccessful participation.
Provisions considered
- Section 14, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007The statutory jurisdiction over service disputes and specified civil-court powers did not authorise directing the Government to formulate a particular promotion policy or extending service pending it. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Tribunal remains subject to High Court judicial review. The Court distinguished that constitutional jurisdiction from the Tribunal’s limited statutory powers in rejecting the policy-making direction. (¶¶ 15, 20, 21, 22)
Held
- Jurisdiction to adjudicate promotion disputes does not confer power to direct the executive to frame a particular promotion policy. The Tribunal is bound by its governing legislation and could not require a separate promotion-board policy for the officer. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The officer’s ordinary retirement age could not be extended indefinitely while a new policy was framed and consideration afforded. Superannuation is governed by executive policy; possible advancement of retirement age following an actual promotion did not justify the continuation ordered. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
- The officer knowingly participated in the 2015 Promotion Board and attacked the lack of a separate policy only after the outcome was adverse. On those facts, waiver and acquiescence barred his later challenge to the method of selection. (¶¶ 28.1, 28.2, 28.3, 28.4, 28.5)
Result
Union’s appeal allowed. The Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment and order were quashed and set aside. Interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.