SURINDER SHUKLA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 09-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 449 
~-+ 
SURINDER SHUKLA 
A 
,. 
v. 
.: 
UNION OF INDIA 
(C.A. No. 250 of 2008) 
JANUARY 9, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] . 
--( -
Armed Forces: 
Promotion -
Appellant-Lt. Colonel, considerecffor c 
promotion to rank of Colonel a number of times'- Not selected 
on all such occasions ~ Complaints filed by him rejected ..... 
Writ petition by Appellant praying entitlement for promotion 
on ground that his service record was better than that of his 
colleagues superseding him - Dismissed - Justification of'--
Held: Justified - Selection board had not recommended name D 
of Appellant for promotion, which was approved by. the Chief 
~ 
of Army Staff - Court cannot exercise power of judicial;r:eview 
to enter into merit of the decision - Moreover, there was no 
allegation of mala fide against members of Selection Soard -
Colleagues of Appellant who superseded him were furthermore E 
not impleaded as parties in the writ petition - In their absence, 
the writ petition could not have been effectively adjudicated 
upon -
Considerations applicable to other Government 
servants in matter of promotion may not be applicable in ?Jrmy 
services -Administrative Law- Judicial Review- Constitution 
F 
+ 
of/ndia, 1950 -Art. 226 - Service Law. 
Appellant, Lt. Colonel, was considered for promotion 
to the rank of Colonel a number of times but not selected 
on all such occasions. Complaihts filed by him were 
rejected by the Competent authority. Appellant filed writ G 
i 
petition contending that he should have been promoted 
as he had a better service record than that of his 
colleagues who superseded him. High Court dismissed 
the writ petition. Hence the present.appeal. 
. 
H 
449 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The post of 'Colonel' is a selection post. 
A large number of factors are required to be taken into 
consideration therefor, viz.: i) Annual Confidential Reports 
8 profile of the officer in the relevant ranks; ii) War Reports; 
iii) Battle Awards and Honours earned by the officers 
·during his service; iv) Professional courses done by the 
officer, his performance during the course and grading 
obtained therein; v) Special Achievements and 
weaknesses; vi) Appointments held by the officers 
C including criteria command/staff appointments; vii) 
Disciplinary background and punishments and viii) 
Employability and potential including consistent 
recommendations for promotion to the next higher rank. 
[Para 9] [454-E, F, G, H; 455-A, B] 
D 
1.2. Considering the comparative batch merit, if the 
selection board did not recommend the name of the 
appellant for promotion to the rank of Colonel which 
appears to have been approved by the Chief of Army Staff, 
E it is not for the court exercising power of judicial review 
to enter into the merit of the decision. The selection board 
was constituted by senior officers presided over by an 
officer of the rank of Lt. General. [Para 10] [455-B, C] 
1.3. Appellant moreover did not allege any mala fide 
F against the members of the Selection Board. What 
impelled the selection board not to recommend his case 
~ 
but the names of other two officers is not known. 
[Para 10) [455-D, E] 
1.4. The colleagues of Appellant who superseded 
G him were furthermore not impleaded as parties in the writ 
petition. In their absence, the writ petition could not have 
been effectively adjudicated upon. [Para 11] [455-E, F] 
Union of India and Ors. v Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan 
H and Anr (2000) 5 SCALE 327 and Amrik Singh v Union of 
SURINDER SHUKLA v. UNION OF INDIA 
451 
[S.B. SINHA, J] 
r-+ 
India and Ors. (2001) 10 sec 424 - relied on. 
A 
2. The peculiarities of special requirements of 
defence services in a case of this nature must also be 
kept in view. The considerations which apply to other 
Government servants in the matter of promotion may not 
B 
be held to be applicable in the army services. [Para 14] 
[456-C] 
~ 
~ 
Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 
sc 1393 : 1989 Supp (1) sec 416)- relied on. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 250 c 
of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.1 ;2007 of 
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in C.W.P. No. 3639/2005. 
Surinder Shukla, Appellant-In-Person. 
D 
Kiran Bhardwaj and B.K. Prasad (for D.S. Mehra) for the 
...i 
Respondents . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E

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