MAJOR GENERAL R.S. BALYAN versus THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MAJOR GENERAL R.S. BAL YAN 
v. 
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Armed Forces-Seniority, determination of-Permanent Secondment of 
Service Officers in Directorate General of Quality Assurance-Applicability 
of Office Memorandum or Para 68 of the Regulations-High Court holding 
appellant junior to respondent in the seniority list-On appeal, held: Seniority 
is to be determined according to Government Orders and not by Para 68-
D As per the OM, officers permanently seconded to DGQA shall be included in 
Cadre Seniority List of Permanently Seconded Service Officers as per their 
date of seniority as substantive Major-At the time of permanent secondment 
to DGQA appellant was junior to respondent in the substantive rank of 
Major-Para 68 ·deals with the effective date of substantive promotion and 
E as such does not qualify as a general rule for determining seniority-
Appeilant-junior officer being promoted prior to respondent-senior officer 
due to availability of the vacancy in his discipline, does not make the junior 
officer senior-Further, Government is competent to correct the mistake of 
ranking appellant senior to respondent, on coming to know about the same-
Thus, order of High Court correct-Office Memorandum No.21(4)1921 
F D(inspection), Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 04.05.1993-
Regulations for the Army, 1962 Para 68. 
Appellant was commissioned in the Armament discipline on 09.06.1968 
whereas respondent No.5 was commissioned in the Engineering discipline on 
25.12.1966. In common seniority fist respondent No. 5 was senior to appellant. 
G Appellant was promoted to the rank of Substantive Major on 09.06.1981 and 
the respondent No.5 was promoted to the rank of Substantive Major on 
25.12.1979 in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA). In the 
Gradation list of 1988, appellant was at SI. No. 49 whereas respondent No.5 
was at SI. No.45. Appellant superseded three officers senior to him in 
H 
894 
• 
-
~IAJORGEN. RS. BAL YAN, .. SECTY. ~llNISTRY OFDEF, GO\'T. Oc INDl.A 
895 
Armament discipline and gained seniority over 16 officers of other disciplines, A 
including respondent No. 5 who was senior to in the Gradation List dated 
20.07.1998 in respect of service officers permanently seconded to DGQA 
organization. As the appellant was given 'A' Grade, he got accelerated 
promotion to the available vacancy in the Armament discipline as Brigadier 
on 07.11.2000. Respondent No.S was promoted as Brigadier only on 
11 .02.2002. Thereafter, appellant was considered for promotion as Major B 
General and was given the substantive rank of Major General w.e.f25.0S.2002 
in accordance with para 68 of the Regulations forthe Army, 1962. Respondent 
No. 5 was granted substantive rank of Major General w.e.f 1.10.2004 . 
In 2004, seniority list was published and it was only then the officers C 
adversely affected became aware about the wrong conferment of seniority to 
the appellant. Respondent and other 15 senior officers were never considered 
for promotion with appellant at the time of granting substantive rank of 
Brigadier to him and later on as Major General. The affected officers objected 
the same. On review of seniority it was found that one higher rank had been 
conferred on the appellant. Appellant was given substantive rank of Brigadier D 
w.e.f. 05.04.2002 and he was considered for further promotion to the rank of 
Major General along with eight other officers. Respondent No.5 was conferred 
seniority w.e.f. 01.10.2004 and appellant w.e.f. 01.03.2005 as Major Generals. 
Respondent-authorities issued a revised seniority list whereby the appellant 
was demoted and was made junior to the respondent No. 5. Appellant filed E 
Writ Petition. High Court dismissed the same holding that the appellant was 
junior to respondent No. 5 in the substantive rank of Major, therefore, his 
claim for seniority over respondent No.5 cannot be sustained. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: I. 1 In the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), 
officers due for promotion, who may not be from the same batch, are 
considered within their disciplines only and promoted as per their inter se 
seniority in the substantive rank of Major as has been laid down in 0. M. 
No.21(4)/92ffi (inspection), Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated G 
04.

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