UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus CAPT. SATENDRA KUMAR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 18-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
CAPT. SA TEND RA KUMAR 
JULY 18, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSlNGHPANTA,.IJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Army Act, 1950; Section 19/Army Rules; Rule 13-A/Defence Service 
Regulations, Para 79: 
C 
Commissioned Officer in Army-Promotion-Examination in two stages, 
Part B and Part D-lncumbent appearing in Part D examination without 
qualifoing Part B examination by suppressing the facts-Notice-Authorities 
passing order against the erring officer retiring him from service-Challenge D 
to-High Court held that in view of the amendment in the Army Instructions 
extending the time limit to qualifo the promotional examination, the officer 
was entitled to ~einstatement in service-On appeal, Held: By the time 
amendment came into force, time period available to the officer to qualifo 
Part B examination was over-Merely because order of retirement was passed 
subsequent to the amendment did not change the position as to the E 
·applicability of time limit/conditions for qualifoing the examination-Hence, 
order of the High Court indefensible. 
Respondent was a commissioned Officer in the Indian Army. In terms 
of Rule 13-A of the Army Rules read with para 79 of the Defence Service 
Regulations all commissioned officers were required to pass, in terms of the F 
existing rules, the promotional examination (Part B) within 13 years of 
reckonable service. Thereafter, they were required to pass Part D examination 
for promotion within 20 years of the service. The respondent-officer had 
appeared in the Part D promotional examination without completing Part B 
examination. Since the authorities found him not eligible to appear in Part D G 
examination, his result was declared to be void. A show cause notice was issued 
to him in terms of the Rules. He was awarded severe dis-pleasure (non-
recordable) for filing false application form for Part D examination. In the 
meantime, the Government oflndia amended Army Instructions extending the 
time limit for completing the Part B examination from 13 years to 20 years. 
~5 
H 
656 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A The authorities passed an order retiring him from service in terms of Section 
19 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 13-A of the Rules as he had failed 
to qualify in Part B examination within the prescribed time period. 
Challenging the order, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The 
High Court held that by the time order of his retirement from service was 
B passed, the period for qualifying the promotional examination has been 
increased from 13 years to 20 years in terms of amended Instructions, and 
therefore, the respondent was entitled to re-instatement in service. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Appellants contended that the High Court clearly erred in holding that 
C the amendment was applicable to the respondent-officer, since by the time the 
amendment was introduced the period of 13 years originally stipulated was 
over. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: The amended Army Instructions raising the period for qualifying 
the part B promotional examination from 13 years to 20 years though issued 
on 20th August, 1999 were made applicable with effect from 24.4.1998. By 
the time the amendment came into effect, the 13 years period which was 
available to the respondent .. commissioned officer to pass Part B examination, 
was over. The notice regarding non success in the examination within the 
E stipulated time had also been given to the respondent on 11.9.1997. Merely 
because the final order was passed on 21.9.2001 that did not change the 
position so far as the respondent is concerned. The High Court, therefore, 
erred in holding that the extended period of 20 years was applicable to the 
respondent. [659-D-E-F] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2084 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.2002 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37551 /200 I. 
Amarendra Sharan, A.S.G., Rekha Pandey, Shishi Pinaki, Salinee Ranjan 
G Fernandes and B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellants. 
Rakesh K. Sharma (N.P.) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the 
U.0.1. v. CAPT. SATENDRAKUMAR[PASAYAT,J.] 
657 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding A 
that the respondent is entitled to be re-instated and is to be given time upto 
9.6.2004 to pa

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