Summary
The Supreme Court quashed another officer’s appointment as DGMS (Army) and directed appointment of the petitioner within one week. Lateral shifting from another service lacked the exceptional circumstances required by policy. The authorities also substituted a novel career-average merit exercise for the prescribed inter se seniority and suitability assessment. In light of repeated litigation, the petitioner’s admitted eligibility and seniority, and absence of a finding of unsuitability, direct relief was warranted.
Issues
- Whether lateral transfer to DGMS (Army) complied with the policy’s exceptional-circumstances requirement.
- Whether career-average scoring properly applied inter se seniority and suitability.
- Whether fresh reconsideration or direct appointment was the appropriate remedy.
Provisions considered
- 1992 policy, clauses 2(i) and 2(iii), Government of India policy governing appointment of DGsMSThe prescribed inter se seniority and suitability assessment had to be followed. Lateral shifting between services required exceptional circumstances, which were neither recorded in the decision nor established in the response. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 28, 30, 31, 32)
Held
- Judicial review concerned the legality of the decision-making process and relevant considerations, not substitution of the Court’s preferred comparative assessment. The importance of the post did not permit departure from the Government’s own criteria. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29)
- No exceptional circumstances justified moving the incumbent from DGMS (Air) to DGMS (Army). His consideration through lateral shifting therefore breached the governing policy. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33)
- The novel overall-average-performance method treated the exercise as comparative career merit rather than the prescribed suitability assessment with due weight to seniority. The earlier judgment did not direct that departure, and the petitioner’s suitability had again not been properly assessed. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 28, 32)
- Given the history of failed consideration, the remaining field and the admitted facts that the petitioner was eligible and senior-most without rejection as unsuitable, the Court granted direct appointment relief rather than another remand. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36)
- The writ petition was allowed and the appointment orders quashed; respondents were to appoint the petitioner as DGMS (Army) within one week. The earlier status-quo miscellaneous application was disposed of as infructuous. (¶¶ 6, 36)
Result
Writ petition allowed. Orders dated 10 August 2018 quashed; respondents directed to appoint the petitioner as DGMS (Army) within one week. Miscellaneous application disposed of as infructuous.