LAKHWINDER SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 730 · Decided: 10-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 730 
LAKHWINDER SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Special Leave Pe~ition (Civil) No.8501 of 2007) 
JULY 10, 2008 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ] 
Service Law: 
Army - Promotion to post of Lt. General - Recommen-
dations by two successive Special Selection Boards for pro-
motion of petitioner- Not accepted by competent authority -
High Court dismissing candidate's writ petition - HELD: Sug-
gestion by Special Selection Board being recommendatory, 
can be varied or interfered with by Appointing Authority - On 
comparison of profiles, petitioner graded unfit - No interfer-
ence called for with judgment of High Court. 
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the decision of the respondents not to promote 
him to the post of Lt. General. The case of the petitioner was 
that despite his excellent service profile and two succes-
sive recommendations for promotion to the rank of Lt. Gen-
eral made by Special Selection Board, consisting of Chief 
of Army Staff (COAS), Vice-Chief of Army Staff and six se-
nior Lt. Generals in the Army, the respondents wrongly with-
held promotion to the petitioner. The stand of the respon-
dents was that on both the occasions, on a comparison of 
profiles of the recommended candidates, the petitioner was 
found to have the weakest profile and was graded "unfit" 
for promotion. It was submitted that the assessment by the 
Selection Board was recommendatory and the competent 
authority, namely the COAS or the Central Government, had 
an inherent power to modify the recommendation. The peti-
tioner, having failed in the writ petition before the High Court, 
filed the instant petition for special leave to appeal. 
730 
~ 
t 
I 
,' 
_. 
r
I 
~ 
,,,. 
~ 
--;. 
.
~-
LAKHWINDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & 
731 
r 
ORS. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 It is no doubt true that the name of the· 
petitioner was recommended on two occasions by two 
successive Special Selection Boards for promotion to the 
post of Lt. General, but on each occasion he was declared 
B 
-< 
unfit on account of the fact that there were lesser number 
of vacancies available than the number of candidates rec-
ommended and it was found on a comparative assess-
ment that of all the recommended officers, he had the 
weakest profile. [para 19] [739-B-C] 
c 
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Lt. General Rajinder Singh 
Kadyan 2000 (6) SCC 698; and Union of India vs. Col. Shyam 
Kumar 1982 (3) DRJ 225 - referred to. 
1.2 Although the Special Selection Board consists 
of the highest-ranking officers of the Indian Army, yet its D 
suggestions are only recommendatory in nature and un-
der the Army Regulations can be varied or interfered with 
by the Appointing Authority, as has been done in the in-
stant case. [para 19] [739-C & D] 
1.3 Besides the active service of an officer during War E 
and Battle Awards and Honours earned during such ac-
tion, there are several other factors to be taken into con-
sideration by the Special Selection Board in recommend-
ing promotion from the post of Major General to Lt. Gen-
1" 
eral. While the petitioner may have better records in the 
F 
said category, the Board has also to take into consider-
ation various other categories which have been set out 
in the judgment of the High Court. It is only on an overall 
assessment that the profile of an officer is prepared and 
was so prepared in the instant case where a comparison G 
had to be made in filling up the available vacancies. [para 
l. 
19] [739-F,G,H; 740-A] 
2. The Central Government, having gone through the 
official records, which were also produced before this H 
I,
I 
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
.( 
' 
A 
Court, considered and dealt with the entire question in a 
l 
manner which was completely free from bias and based 
on the service records of the· different officers. In the cir-
cumstances, no interference is called for with the judgment 
of the High Court. [para 19 and 21] (739-E&F; 740-B&C] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Peti~ 
" 
tion (Civil) No. 8501 of 2007 
t 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3:2007 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 899/2006 
. 
. 
c 
P.S. Patwalia, Shishir Sharma, Amit Dhiilgra and Sim ram 
(for M/s. Dua Associates) for the Appellant. 
T.S. Doabia, Rashmi malhotra and D.S. Mahra for the 
Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~ 
ALTAMAS KABIR,J.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.