Supreme Court Upholds Govt Policy, Seniority, Merit in Selection Process

The Supreme Court refused the review petition, upheld the Central Government's freedom to revise the 1964 policy, validated the selection process based on seniority and merit, and ensured procedural fairness by hearing the petitioner comprehensively. The Court directed the immediate implementation of its final order to avoid further delay.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Review of earlier judgment.
2. Validity and application of the 1964 policy.
3. Selection and promotion criteria for the post of Brigadier.
4. Procedural fairness and hearing of parties.

Summary:

1. Review of Earlier Judgment:
The petitioner sought a review of an earlier judgment due to perceived procedural unfairness and lack of adequate hearing. The Supreme Court emphasized that a review is not a routine procedure and should be granted only if there is a material error or miscarriage of justice. The Court found no such error in the earlier judgment and thus refused the review.

2. Validity and Application of the 1964 Policy:
The petitioner argued that the 1964 policy should govern the selection process. However, the Court had previously ruled that the Central Government was free to revise or reverse the 1964 policy, provided it acted justly and fairly. The Court reiterated that no finality or infallibility attached to the 1964 policy and upheld the Government's plenary power to formulate or modify military policy.

3. Selection and Promotion Criteria for the Post of Brigadier:
The case involved two colonels vying for one post of Brigadier. The High Court had directed the Defence Department to select the best colonel, resulting in both being adjudged equal in merit, but the respondent being chosen due to seniority. The Supreme Court upheld this selection, noting that the respondent was recommended by the Selection Panel in 1979 and that seniority is a valid criterion when merit is equal. The Court found no injustice in the order promoting the respondent.

4. Procedural Fairness and Hearing of Parties:
The petitioner contended that he was not adequately heard in the proceedings leading to the earlier judgment. The Supreme Court acknowledged this grievance but found that the petitioner had been given a fair opportunity to present his case during the review. The Court emphasized that the implementation of its final order should not be delayed further and directed the Central Government to appoint the respondent as Brigadier immediately.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court refused the review petition, upheld the Central Government's freedom to revise the 1964 policy, validated the selection process based on seniority and merit, and ensured procedural fairness by hearing the petitioner comprehensively. The Court directed the immediate implementation of its final order to avoid further delay.

---