LT GEN RAVI DASTANE, AVSM, VSM versus UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 01-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
LT GEN RAVI DASTANE, AVSM, VSM
v.
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, THROUGH THE
SECRETARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9721 of 2014)
MARCH 01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Armed Forces:
Army Commander – Post of – Appointment – Relevant criteria,
seniority or selection – Held: An officer has no vested right to claim
promotion on the basis of seniority alone, however, that does not
mean that the authority entitled to make the appointment must ignore
seniority – Officers of the Army who attain the rank of Lieutenant
General progress through the hierarchical structure after fulfilling
rigorous criteria of assessment – Principle that the appointment of
an Army Commander is made by selection does not require that the
criterion of seniority should be ignored – Seniority may be a relevant
consideration – Seniority brings with it experience of organisation,
experience in handling situations and experience in perspective
and planning – Post, however, remains a selection post – On facts,
tribunal rightly rejected the challenge to selection of two Lieutenant
General-third and fourth respondents as Army Commanders – It
cannot be said that the appointment of the third and fourth
respondents was based exclusively on seniority or in violation of
the norms governing appointment to a selection post by promotion
– There was no breach of the Government of India (Transaction of
Business) Rules, 1961 – Appointment of the third and fourth
respondent duly approved by the Appointments Committee of the
Cabinet.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The emphasis on fitness in every respect is an
indicator that the post is a selection post. This is buttressed by
clause (d) of the letter dated 20 October 1986 which contemplates
a one-time exception to officers who were otherwise found fit but
were not selected because of the revision in the criteria. An officer
has no vested right to claim promotion on the basis of seniority
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 821
821
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
822                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
alone. But that does not mean that the authority entitled to make
the appointment must ignore seniority. Officers of the Army who
attain the rank of Lieutenant General progress through the
hierarchical structure after fulfilling rigorous criteria of
assessment. The principle that the appointment of an Army
Commander is made by selection does not require that the
criterion of seniority should be ignored. The decision in Kadyan
case, while emphasizing that the appointment of Army
Commanders is made by selection, holds that an officer does not
have a vested right to claim to be promoted only by dint of
seniority. The principle that seniority alone does not confer a
right to appointment to a selection post does not mean that the
authority making the appointments must be oblivious to seniority.
Placed below the COAS, the post of Army Commander is of
crucial significance to the organizational structure of the Army.
Seniority may be a relevant consideration: seniority brings with
it experience of organisation, experience in handling situations
and experience in perspective and planning. The post, however,
remains a selection post. In making appointments to such crucial
posts which carry enormous functional responsibilities bearing
on the defence needs of the Armed Forces and ultimately of the
nation, a range of relevant considerations can be borne in mind.
It would not be appropriate in the course of judicial review to
confine the appointing authority to a narrow range of
considerations. The appointing authority is best suited to
determine who among the officers in the rank of Lieutenant
General is suited for appointment against a vacancy. [Para 21]
[833-C-H]
1.2 The submission of the appellant that the appointment
of the third and fourth respondents was based exclusively on
seniority without a comparative evaluation of the officers who
fulfilled the conditions of eligibility is sought to be advanced on
the basis of the order of the Union government dated 31.01.2013,
rejecting the statutory complaint of the appellant. The reasons
for the rejection of the statutory complaint cannot be read to mean
that the selection of the third and fourth respondents as
Army Commanders was based solely on their seniority,
without regard to merit or to a comparative evaluation.
[Para 22, 23][834-A-B; 835-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
823
1.3 While recommending the name of the third and fourth
resp

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