Selection post appointments need comparative assessment of eligible officers; seniority alone does not invalidate the process.

Appointment to a selection post may consider seniority, but seniority does not create a vested right to appointment. The Chief of Army Staff was shown to have examined the service profiles of all eligible Lieutenant Generals and to have made a comparative assessment before recommending the appointments, so the challenge based on exclusive seniority failed. The policy note requiring two senior eligible officers for each vacancy was treated as directory, and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved the selections on the relevant material. No breach of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 was found, and the appointments were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appointment of the Army Commanders was vitiated because it was made exclusively on seniority without a comparative evaluation of eligible officers; (ii) Whether the requirement to recommend two senior eligible officers and the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet under the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 were violated.

Issue (i): Whether the appointment of the Army Commanders was vitiated because it was made exclusively on seniority without a comparative evaluation of eligible officers.

Analysis: The post of Army Commander is a selection post. Seniority is relevant, but it does not confer a vested right to appointment. The record showed that the Chief of Army Staff examined the service profiles of all eligible Lieutenant Generals in the zone of consideration and made a recommendation after considering the eligible officers. The material before the Court did not support the contention that the appointment was made solely on the basis of seniority or without regard to merit.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed and the appointments were not vitiated.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirement to recommend two senior eligible officers and the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet under the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 were violated.

Analysis: The policy note requiring two senior eligible officers for each vacancy was treated as directory, not mandatory. The selection file showed that the eligible officers were considered and that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved the appointments after being apprised of the relevant material. There was no breach of Rule 6 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 or of the approval process.

Conclusion: The alleged procedural violation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no merit in the challenge to the appointments and upheld the legality of the selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointment to a selection post may take seniority into account, but it must be based on a comparative assessment of all eligible officers and is not invalid if the competent authority considers the relevant material and follows the prescribed approval process.

---