TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmands the Army Training Command. The position of Vice Chief of Army Staff is equivalent to an Army Commander. The post of Army Commander/Vice Chief of Army Staff, in the rank of Lieutenant General, is the second highest in the hierarchy of the Indian Army, below the Chief of Army Staff. Promotion to the post of Army Commander (General Officer Commanding in Chief) is by selection from amongst officers holding the rank of Lieutenant General, who fulfill the eligibility criteria. 3. On 22 March 2012, General V K Singh, as Chief of Army Staff, examined a proposal for filling up vacancies in two posts of Army Commander which were to arise on 1 June 2012 on the impending retirement of Lieutenant General S R Ghosh, GOC-in-C, Western Command and the appointment of Lieutenant General Bikram Singh, GOC-in-C, Eastern Command on his appointment as COAS on 31 May 2012. A seniority list of officers in the cadre of Lieutenant General was placed on file. Seven of the senior-most amongst them, who fulfilled the conditions stipulated for promotion as Army Commanders were listed out. The seven officers were: Lt. Gen. Dalbir Singh; Lt. Gen. Sanjiv Chachra; Lt. Gen. RP Dastane; Lt. Gen. JP Ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....COAS and to the Defence Minister following which, on 6 August 202, he filed a statutory complaint. On 31 January 2013, the Union government rejected the complaint. 11. In the meantime, the Appellant filed an Original Application before the AFT6 seeking the following reliefs: (i) Quashing of the appointments of the third and fourth Respondents as Army Commanders; (ii) A direction to the Union of India to consider eligible officers, including the Appellant, for the post of Army Commander which fell vacant on 1 June 2012 in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the letter dated 20 October 1986 of the Union government to the COAS together with a policy decision dated 16 October 1992; and (iii) In the alternative, to grant the Appellant the status of an Army Commander with effect from 1 June 2012 based on the ineligibility of the third Respondent and to appoint the Appellant as Army Commander against the next available vacancy on 1 February 2013. 12. Pleadings were completed before the AFT. On 6 September 2013, the AFT dismissed the OA on the ground that the decision to appoint the third and fourth Respondents as Army Commanders was made on the basis of a comparative study....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to those General officers, presently holding the rank of Lieutenant gen, who are otherwise found fit to hold the appointment but are not selected because of the revision in the criteria. On 18 November 1996, an additional requirement, in the form of Clause (e), was inserted by the Union government in the earlier letter dated 20 October 1986: (e) The officer should have commanded a Corps for at least one year so as to become eligible for appointment as Army Commander/VCOAS. No waiver in this stipulation will be allowed without prior concurrence of the Government. 14. The Appellant has relied on a policy decision/circular dated 16 October 1992. The policy circular adverts to the norms prescribed on 20 October 1986 for the appointment of Army Commanders/VCOAS. The circular states that since commanding a Corps is a prerequisite for promotion as Army Commander, it was essential to clarify the parameters for appointment of Corps Commanders. Paragraph 7 lays down the parameters for appointment of Corps Commanders. The Appellant has relied on the following: d) There is a Govt. requirement to suggest two senior eligible officers for each Army Commander's vacancy. It is, therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant as Army Commander since he was immediately next to the third and fourth Respondents in order of seniority; (iii) Contrary to (ii) above, the case of the Respondents is that the DV ban was lifted on 1 June 2012 and by the time the third Respondent was appointed as Army Commander on 15 June 2012 there was no bar on his appointment; (iv) The Appellant had no vested right to be appointed in the intervening period between the date of the ban and before the vacancy arose on 1 June 2012; (v) The decision of this Court in Kadyan (supra) holds that the post of Army Commander is a selection post. This Court rejected the submission that appointment to the post of Army Commander must be based on seniority alone; (vi) Hence, even assuming for the purpose of argument that the third Respondent could not have been appointed in view of the DV ban, the Appellant had no vested right to selection as the senior-most officer after the third Respondent; and (vii) On 2 May 2012, the complete service profile of seven officers in the cadre of Lieutenant General was forwarded to the Defence Minister by the COAS. Thereafter, upon due consideration by the Defence Minister, the third and fourth ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral in the usual course it may be that the seniormost officer is selected as the Army Commander. But that does not debar the Chief of the Army Staff or the Union of India from making the selection of any other person for good reasons who fulfils the necessary criteria. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it was improper on the part of the High Court to have concluded that the post of Army Commander is a non-selection post. Further, the conclusion reached by the High Court that appointment to the post of Army Commander has to be made on the basis of seniority alone cannot be accepted. In Kadyan (supra), the view of the High Court that the appointment of an Army Commander should not be made on the basis of selection but on the basis of seniority alone was reversed by this Court. 19. Based on the rationale that the post is a selection post, the Appellant assails the decision to appoint the third and fourth Respondents as Army Commanders on the ground that it was taken exclusively on the basis of seniority, sans a comparative evaluation of the merits of other officers in the rank of Lt. General who fulfilled the requirements spelt out in the letters dated 20 October 1986 and 18 Nov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... among the officers in the rank of Lieutenant General is suited for appointment against a vacancy. 22. The submission of the Appellant that the appointment of the third and fourth Respondents was based exclusively on seniority without a comparative evaluation of the officers who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility is sought to be advanced on the basis of the order of the Union government dated 31 January 2013, rejecting the statutory complaint of the Appellant. Emphasis has been laid on the following extract from the order dated 31 January 2013: 3. The Statutory Complaint of the General Officer has been examined in detail and the following facts emerge: (i) The proposal seeking appointment of Lt. Gen. Dalbir Singh Suhag as GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and Lt. Gen. Sanjiv Chachra as GOC-in-C, Western Command in the rank of Army Commanders against the two vacancies occurring w.e.f. 1st Jun., 2012 was received in the Ministry on March 22, 2012. The proposal was duly recommended by the COAS along with the certificate that no administrative/plenary/vigilance, proceedings were pending or contemplated against the two officers. (ii) The proposal was examined in the Ministry with re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commendations to appoint Respondents No. 3 and 4 were approved by the ACC in terms of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. Moreover, it has been submitted that: ...in the present case the consideration took place in respect of seven eligible Lieutenant General's including the applicant and out of seven, Respondents 3 and 4 were recommended by the COAS and the Government of India, Ministry of Defence and approval was given by the ACC. 24. The averments in the counter affidavit are borne out by the file which has been produced before this Court. While recommending the name of the third and fourth Respondents, the COAS had the service profile of seven officers in the rank of Lieutenant General. Two of the seven officers had a shortfall in the period of one year prescribed as Corps Commander. The service profile together with the CR dossiers of the seven officers were forwarded by the COAS to the Defence Minister. Before the Defence Minister endorsed the proposal for the appointment of the third and fourth Respondents, he was apprised in writing of the fact that five officers fulfilled the criteria prescribed of having a minimum two years' service l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Business) Rules, 1961. Rule 6 of the Rules provides that there shall be Standing Committees of the Cabinet, which are set out in the First Schedule. Rule 6(1) provides thus: 6. Committees of the Cabinet.- (1) There shall be Standing Committees of the Cabinet as set out in the First Schedule to these Rules with the functions specified therein. The Prime Minister may from time to time amend the Schedule by adding to or reducing the numbers of such Committees or by modifying the functions assigned to them. The ACC is specified at Item 1 of the First Schedule. The functions of the ACC include, inter alia: (i) To take decisions in respect of appointments specified in Annexure I to the First Schedule to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961; Annexure 1 to the First Schedule inter alia specifies the following: 14. Vice-Chief of the Army Staff/General Officers Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command, Southern Command, Eastern Command, Western Command, Northern Command, South Western Command and Army Training Command. There has been no breach of the Transaction of Business Rules. The appointment of the third and fourth Respondents was duly approved by the ACC. T....