LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus MAJ. GEN. DAYANAND KHURANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. MAJ. GEN. DAYANAND KHURANA AUGUST 6, 1991 [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, V. RAMASWAMI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] Service Law-Army Officers-Promotion-Major General to Lt. General-Adoption of two stream concept viz. 'Command and Staff Stream· and 'Staff Only· Stream-Fixation of inter-se seniority after adoption of two stream concept-Officers approved in 'Command and Staff Stream of the same batch'-Whether senior to officers approved in Staff Only' Stream. On 31st May, 1986 the Government of India approved, in princi- ple, the 'Two Stream' concept of career management of Army Officers which envisaged that officers on promotion to Major General and Lt. General will be bifurcated into the 'Command and Staff' and the 'Staff Only' Stream. By an order dated 9th September, 1986 issued by Mili- tary Secretary, Army Headquarters, tne modalities of the concept, were worked out and it was i11ter-a/ia provided that for the purpose of seniority, officers of the 'Staff Only' Stream will be j11nior to officers of the ·command and Staff' Stream. While adopting the methodology for implementation of the 'Two Stream Concept', in its note dated 22nd September, 1986 the Military Secretary stated that two options are available for fixing the sequence of promotion under the 'Stream Concept'. Under option 'A' the existing sequence of promotion is maintained and in that officers are to be promoted as per their inter-se senioritv, irrespective of the stream. In the case of Option 'B', whereas the existing sequence of promotion is maintained, but promotion is to be effected in accordance with the stream in which an officer is being promoted. After giving advantages and disadvantages of the two options, the said note recommended that option 'B' should be adopted. The Military Secretary's note was approved by Vice Chief of Army Staff and the Chief of Army Staff. By a communication dated Isl June, 1987 the Military Secretary clarified its earlier note dated 22nd September, 1986 explaining that officers of the General Cadre of a particular batch seniority approved in the 'Command and stafr Stream will be en-block senior to those 350 1 U.0.1. v. MAJ. KHURANA 351 otlicers of the same batch approved on the 'Staff Only' Stream. How- ever, an ollicer of an earlier batch approved on the 'Staff Only' Stream will be senior to an ollicer of subsequent batch approved on the 'Com- mand and Staff' Stream. Under the promotion policy of Army every officer is given three chances for consideration for promotion. The first opportnnity is called "fresh cases". The second opportunity is called "first review cases" and the third opportunity is called "final review cases". An officer not approved for promotion loses one year on seniority and slides into the batch of the next year. The respondent, commissioned in the army in 1954, while acting as Brigadier, was selected as Major General in 1956 batch. Accord- ingly, his seniority was fixed alongwith 1956 batch. While working as Major General he was considered for promotion to the rank of Lt. General in 1989 but was disapproved. He thus lost seniority of 1956 batch. He was then considered as a first review case in 1990 alongwith 1957 batch-comprising of final review case of 1955 batch, first review case of 1956 batch and fresh case of 1957 batch-and was approved for selection for 'Staff Only' Stream. Since he was approved only for 'Staff Only' Stream, in the select panel dated 26th October, 1990 he was placed below all other Major Generals who were approved for selection in the Stream of 'Command and Staff'. Aggrieved by his placement below the officers who were approved for 'Command and Staff' Stream, he filed a writ petition in the High Court which directed the Union of India to treat the respondent senior to all the other Major Generals who were promoted to the acting rank A B c D E of Lt. General in the 'Command and Staff' stream and to expeditiously promote him ahead of the 1957 batch. Against the decision of the Divi- F sion Bench of the High Court the Union of India filed an appeal in this Court. Setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court, HELD: I. The Division Bench of the High Court totally misunder- G t stood the note of the Military Secretary dated 22nd September, 1986 as well as the note of the Vice Chief of Army Staff. In the note of the Military Secretary dated 22nd September, 1986
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.