UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY GANGULY. VSM

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 61 · Decided: 10-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l l S.C.R. 61 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
v. 
MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY GANGULY. VSM 
(Civil Appeal No. 17535of2017) 
NOVEMBER IO. 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
... 
Service Laiv: 
Promotion - To the rank of Lieutenant General in Indian 
Army - Respondent considered for promotion by Special Promotion 
Board (SPB) but not empcmelled, An Officer junior to him was one 
of the promoted officers - Pursuant to his statutot:v complaint,, his 
assessment in one of the relevant ACRs was expunged - It was 
directed that he be considered for promotion - He was considered 
A 
B 
by review SPB, but even then not empanelled for promotion -
D 
Re.1pondent approached Armed Forces Trilnmal - Tribunal quashed 
the proceedings al Review SPB· on the ground tlwt it had allotted 
wrong Board marks to the respondent - On appeal, held: Review 
SPB is nothing but extension of original SPB - Respondent was 
supposed to be considered on the same parameters as if he was 
participating in promotion process undertaken by original SPB -
The criteria adopted by original SPB in awarding board marks were 
not adopted by the Review SPB - Had the Review SPB adopted the 
same criteria, the respondent would have got higher marks than 
the last promoted officer - Projection ol wrong facts before the 
Board Members in respect of CR merit of the respondent also resulted 
in award ~/'lesser marks by the Review SPB. 
Dismissing the appeal, 'the Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1. Undoubtedly, the Members of the.Board are 
empowered to award marks out of the two marks which are 
reserved for them. For this purpose, it is not the ACR alone but 
G 
the entire profile of an officer which is to be looked into. Insofar 
as, marks for ACR are concerned these have already been 
awarded under the head 'average marks of ACR extrapolated 
out of 90'. It shows that significant importance is attached to the 
61 
H 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPOKTS 
!2UI 7j i l S.l~.R. 
A 
ACR~ inasmuch as 9U marks out of 95 marks arc lo he assigned 
on 1hc basis of ACRs. Therefore, it cannot he dispu1ed that while 
awarding marks out of the 1wo marks reserved tor the \lcmbers 
of the Board, they can examine the overall profile of !he officer 
and arc not supposed tu res1rict it to the ACR alone. It also 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
needs r o elaboration that Board l\'1cntbcrs arc the three Chiefs 
of Services and it can very well be presumed that they would 
assess an officer in an objective manner. Indubitably, hiigher 
degree of trust can be reposed in them and their assessment is 
not to be interdilcted unless very weighty and overwhelming 
material is produced warranting interference while undertaking 
judicial review of such an exercise. [Para 171(70-D-F[ 
2. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal wrongly 
distinguished its judgment passed in the case of /lfaj. Gener11/ 
S.K. Clwlmn·or(r vs. Union ofb11li111111d Ors. (which was relied on 
by the respondent), with the remarks that that case was not in 
respect of the Ar'11ed Medical Corps wherein the assessment is 
based on quantified check marks. This basis of distinguishing 
the judgment in S.K. Cltakravorty is clearly erroneous. The 
provision for assessment for promotion to Lt. General is same 
wh~ther it is Army per se or Armed Medical Corps.[ Para 181 [70-
G-H; 71-AI 
Air Vice Marshal SL Clwbbra VSM ( Retd.) v. U11iui: 
ofI11dia & Anr. (1993) Suppl. 4 SCC 441: 11993[ 2 
Suppl. SCR 659; Maior General I.PS. Dewan v. Uniu11 
of India & Or.1. (1995) 3 SCC 383 : [19951 2 SCR 
532; Dalpal Abasaheb So/1111ke & Ors. v. fJr. B. S. 
Mahajan & Ors (1990) I SCC 305; Surinder Shukla v. 
Union al India & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 649 : (2008] I 
SCR 449 - referred to. 
3. It is difficult to disagree with the ultimate conclusion 
arrived at by the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, even if 
some of the observations of the Tribunal may not be correct. 
Most important fcuture which is noted by the Tribunal and could 
not be disputed by the appellant is the manner in which exercise 
was undertaken while holding SPB meeting on 20'" January, 2016. 
Even when the Board Members were entitled to give marks to 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY 
GANGUL Y, VSM 
the candidates on the basis of overall prolile, that was not done. 
On the contrary, the murks given to those officus who were 
considered in that SPB, wcrc·s1rictly on the basis of marks obtained 
hy them out of 93 marks. The Tribunal is right in observing that 
in the meeting held on 20'" .Janua
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.