AIR VICE MARSHAL S.L. CHHABRA VSM (RETD.) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 669 · Decided: 11-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
AIR VICE MARSHAL S.L. CHHABRA VSM (RETD.) 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MAY 11, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Selection by Selection Board for promotion to rank of Air Vice 
Marshal-Adverse remarks in Appraisal report for 1986 communicated in 1988, 
and expunged in 1989-Whether appellam emitted to promotion since selection 
in 1987 and moderation of appraisal report for 1987. 
c 
Appellant had been clear·ed for all selection grade promotions up to rank 
of Air Commodore. Selection Board for promotions to rank of Air Vice 
Marshal considered the appellant in 1987, but did not recommend him for 
promotion as only one appraisal report was available. The Board decided that 
appellants performance be watched at least for a year more. Appellant not 
D 
selected by Selection Board in 1988 also, but no. reasons on record as to wh.y 
he was not recommended for promotion. Adverse remarks in appraisal 
report for 1986, were communicated to the Appellant in 1988 and on 
representation by him, adverse remarks were expunged in 1989. Appellant 
cleared for promotion by the Selection Board in 1989. Appellant filed writ 
petition in High Court seeking directions for promotion since selection in 1987 
E 
and also moderation of appaisal report for 1987 and consequential extension 
of service for one year w.e.f. the date of his retirement i.e. 31.10.1990. The 
High Court held that appellant was entitled to promotion to rank of Air Vice 
Marshal by Selection Board in 1988 with all consequential benefits and 
directed the respondents to fix appropriate date of promotion on b~sis of the 
selection by the Selection Board in 1988. 
F 
On appeals, filed by special leave petitions, by both parties, this Court, 
HELD : That the Selection Board while considering suitability of an 
officer for promotion to a higher post takes into consideration sel'eral factors 
G 
;,.. 
and its decision is not based solel)' on appraisal report of Controlling Officer. 
As the Selection Bard had decide in 1987 that performance of the appellant 
be watched for at least one year more, it was neither possible for the High 
Court nor this Court to act as a court of appeal against the decision of the 
Selection Board. Public interest should be the primary consideration of all 
selection Boards constituted for selecting candidates for promotion to higher 
H 
669 
670 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993} 3 S.C.R. 
A 
post. ... The court cannot encroach over this power by substituting its own view 
and opinion. There is no scope to interfere with the decision of the selection 
board for 1987. (672-F, 673-B) 
B 
The appellant would ha\•e been promoted.to the higher post in 1988, in 
the normal course. It appeared that he was not promoted because of the 
adverse remarks in 1986, No other explanation was furnished by the respon-
dents. The Court directed that the appellant be reconsidered for promotion 
with reference to the ~·ear 1988, as the adverse remarks had been expunged. 
(673-E-F) 
c 
This Court, further held that neither the High Court nor this Court can 
moderate the appraisal and grading of the appellant for a particular year. 
While exercising the power ofjudicial review, Court shall not venture to 
assess and appraise the merit or the grading of an officer. This Court did not 
give any direction for moderation of appraisal report of 1987, and concluded 
thatthe appellate was not entitlCd to extension of service for one year, claimed 
D 
by him. (675-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 of 
1993. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.1990 of the Delhi Hig~ Coun in 
F 
G 
H 
C.W.No. 1711of1990. 
S.L. Chhabra-in-person. 
Altaf Ahmed, Addi. Solicitor General, K. Lahiri, Mrs. Sushma Suri, T.C. 
Sharma, C.V.S. Rao and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by 
N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant, while holding the post of Air Vice Marshal, filed a writ 
application, questioning the validity of the decision of the Union oflndia, refusing 
to moderate the Appraisal Report of 1987; to promote the appellant to the rank of 
Air Vice.Marshal from a prior date, and to grant ext~nsion of the service of the 
appellant for one year, in the rank of Air Vice Marshal. 
AIR VICE MARSHAL v. U.0.1. [N.P. SINGH, J.] 
671 
There is no dispute that the case of the appellant had been cleared for all 
A 
selection grade promotions up to the rank of Air Commodore. A meeting of the 
Selection Board, to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.