UNION OF INDIA versus R. BHUSAL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 12-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
R. BHUSAL 
JULY 12, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Armed Forces-Air Force-Claim for Permanent Commission-Officer 
C granted Short Service Commission-With Helicopter Short Service Commission 
course-After completion of initial period, considered but not recommended 
for permanent Commission and release order issued as his performance 
appraisal ·was beloll' 111ini111u111 require111ent-Medical fitness was also below 
the required catego1y-Order challenged on the g,·ound that lower 111edical 
D categm)' should not have been taken into account to deny hi111 per111anent 
Com111ission-High Court allowing writ petition-Held, conclusions arrived 
al by High Court were beyond pleadings-Specific stand of the Department 
was perfor111ance criteria fixed under the applicable policy regulations was 
not fulfilled by the Officer-There is no specific challenge as to applicability 
of either criteria or policy regulations.-Jn the fitness of things, High Court 
E should re-hear the matter. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1622 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.2003 of the High Court of Delhi 
at New Delhi, in Writ Petition No. 8307/2002. 
Mohd. Yusuf, Kiran Bhardwaj and Sushma Suri for the Appellant. 
N.M. Krishnamani, Narender Kaushik, Pankaj Kaushik and Ashok Kumar 
Sharma for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT J. Union of India calls in question legality of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the 
writ petition filed by the respondent. By the impugned judgment, High Court 
directed the present appellant to grant the writ petitioner a permanent 
498 
U.0.1. v. R. BHUSAL (PASAYA T . .I.] 
499 
... 
commission. It was further directed that alternate employability was to be A 
given, keeping in view his medical fitness. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
The respondent was granted Short Service Comission with No.3 
Helicopter Short Service Commission Course on 19.2.1993. His initial terms B 
was for ten years as per terms and conditions of service. In February 200 I, 
he was considered for grant of permanent comission. The suitability assessment 
consisted of minimum demonstrated performance and medical fitness. The 
former was to be gauzed from the grading in the confidential annual reports 
for the previous three years and on the basis of mandatory qualities like C 
professional knowledge, job proficiency integrity, loyality, dependability, sense 
of responsibility, courage (mental and physical), bearing and demeanour. For 
grant of permanent commission. a minimum average of 6.5 in the previous 
three years appraisals and not less than 6 in the manadtory qualities. As 
regards medical categorisation, the requirement was not below the rating of 
A-2-G-2. According to the appellant, respondent averaged 6.0 as against the D 
minimum requirement of 6.5. As regards medical fitness. he was in the category 
of A4G3. Accordingly he was not recommended for permanent commission by 
the Board and release order was issued on I 1.4.2002. Respondent's 
representation was rejected. Thereafter, respondent filed a writ petition before 
the High Court. His basic stand was that he was in the lower medical category 
as he was involved in an aircraft accident and that should not have been E 
taken into account to deny permanent commission, particularly when the 
Chief of the Air Staff had on enquiry found that no one could be blamed and 
the injuries sustained by the petitioner were attributable to service. 
Stand of the present appellant was that low medical categorisation had F 
no bearing on the decision to deny the permanent commission. It was 
categorically stated that the writ petitioner did not meet the minimum 
performance criteria. 
As noted supra the High Court allowed the writ petition. 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court did not 
consider the case in its proper perspective and allowed the writ petition over-
looking the fact that there was no challenge to the performance criteria 
adopted and determination on the basis thereof. 
G 
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the High H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Court. 
We find that the High Court's consideration of the writ petition filed by 
the respondent and conclusions arrived at were beyond the pleadings. The 
High Court acted 

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