UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus NARINDERJIT SINGH SIDHU

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 29-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 475 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
v. 
NARINDERJIT SINGH SIDHU 
(Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2003) 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.) 
Service Law - Promotion - Officer initially commissioned 
A 
B 
in the Regiment of Artillery - After establishment of Army 
Aviation Corps, the officer transferred to the Aviation Corps C 
permanently - Complaint by the officer for non-consideration 
of his name for promotion to the next higher post of Major 
- General - Rejection of - Writ petition - High Court directing 
the authorities concerned to consider the name of the officer 
for promotion - On appeal, held: The direction given by High 
D 
Court is just - Rejection of the complaint by the Authorities 
was erroneous. 
The respondent was commissioned in the Indian 
Army in the Regiment of Artillery. In the year 1997, he was 
promoted to the post of Brigadier, in the said Regiment. 
E 
After the establishment of Army Aviation Corps, the 
appellants invited applications for conversion to Army 
Aviation Corps. In response thereto, the respondent 
submitted his application for permanent transfer from his 
parent Regiment to the Army Aviation Corps. The transfer 
F 
was approved. 
The respondent filed a non-statutory complaint 
against non-consideration of his name for promotion to 
the next rank of Major General in the Army Aviation Corps, 
G 
because he was the senior-most Brigadier in the Army 
Aviation Corps (Permanent Cadre). The complaint was 
rejected by the authorities concerned. By further 
communication, the respondent was informed that if he 
4~ 
H 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A so wished, he could seek reversion to his parent 
Regiment. 
The respondent filed a writ petition, wherein the High 
Court directed the appellants to consider his case for 
8 promotion to the rank of Major General in Army Aviation 
Corps. Therefore, the instant appeal was filed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court has given a just direction 
c to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent 
for promotion to the post of Major General in Army 
Aviation Corps and no case is made out for interfering 
with the same. [Para 8] (487-H] [488-A] 
2. A conjoint and purposeful reading of the 
D documents produced on record, makes it evident that the 
post of Major General had already been earmarked and 
specified for Army Aviation Corps to which sanction of 
the President of India was granted and conveyed. The 
language of the documents on record do not in any 
E manner suggest that Army Aviation Corps had no 
specified vacancy in the rank of Major General. After 
creating a permanent cadre and specifying the post of 
Major General in the Army Aviation Corps, the appellants 
were treating the same as an unspecified vacancy to be 
F manned by an officer to be brought from the other Corps, 
which was erroneous and not justified at all. The High 
Court has rightly observed that the inevitable effect of 
filling up the post of Major General sanctioned in Army 
Aviation Corps by bringing Major General from other 
G Corps had the adverse effect of marring the chances of 
promotion of the officers belonging to Army Aviation 
Corps. [Para 7] [487-D-F] 
3. The respondent was permanently converted to the 
H 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. NARINDERJIT SINGH 477 
'I ' 
' 
I 
SIDHU 
Army Aviation Corps. The respondent, having opted for 
A 
conversion from Regiment of Artillery to Army Aviation 
Corps, was precluded from again opting for Regiment of 
Artillery. This is so, in view of the letter/order dated April 
17, 1997. As per the guidelines mentioned in the said 
cominunication, Aviation Officers were to be groomed in 
B 
stipu·lated criteria appointments and due career 
protection was to be given to those posted in "hi-tech" 
appointments like test Pilots. On the ~asis of these clear 
terms, the respondent had applied for conversion to the 
Aviation Corps on permanent basis. The respondent left c 
his permanent Corps after considering various aspects 
including the chances of future promotion in the Aviation 
Corps. Initially, the allocation of vacancy in the rank of 
Major Gerieral in the Aviation Corps was n<;»t decided. 
However, the process of exercising an option was 
D 
irreversible one and the officer was left with no option to 
rev~rt back to his parent Corps. (Para 5] .(485-C-F] 
· 4. The reason mentioned for rejecting the claim of the 
respondent in his non-statutory complaint

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