REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO 9721   OF 2014

LT GEN RAVI DASTANE, AVSM, VSM                  .... APPELLANT (S)        

Versus

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,  THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS.                  ....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 By  the  present  appeal1,  Lieutenant  General  Ravi  Dastane  has  questioned  the

correctness of a judgment dated 6 September 2013 of the Principal Bench of the Armed

Forces Tribunal2. The AFT rejected his challenge to the selection of Lieutenant General

Dalbir  Singh,  GOC-in-C,  Eastern  Command  and  Lieutenant  General  Sanjiv  Chachra,

GOC-in-C, Northern Command as Army Commanders.  After the decision of the AFT,

Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh (the third respondent) was appointed as Chief of Army

Staff3  and  retired  from service  on  31  December  2016.  Lieutenant  General  Chachra

retired from service on 31 May 2014.  The appellant retired from service on 30 September

2014.

2     There are seven Army Commanders and one Vice Chief of Army Staff in the structure

of  the  Indian  Army.  Six  of  them command the six regional commands of the Army

1 The Civil Appeal was admitted for hearing on 13 October 2014. 2 AFT 3 COAS

1

while the seventh commands 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:

1 Lt Gen Dalbir Singh;

2 Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachra;

3 Lt Gen RP Dastane;

4 Lt Gen JP Nehra;

5 Lt Gen Philip Campose;

6 Lt Gen AS Chabbewal; and

7 Lt Gen Ashok Singh.

4 The  service  profiles  of  the  seven  officers  were  forwarded  together  with  the

recommendation  of  the  COAS that  the  third  respondent  be  appointed  as  GOC-in-C,

Eastern  Command  and  the  fourth  respondent  be  appointed  as  GOC-in-C,  Western

2

Command.  The  COAS  certified  that  no  administrative,  disciplinary  or  vigilance

proceedings were pending or contemplated against them.  

5 A Court  of  Inquiry  was  convened  on  the  directions  of  the  Army  Commander,

Eastern Command to investigate certain incidents which occurred at Dimapur, involving

army  personnel  and  civilians  on  20-21  December  2011.  On  18  April  2012,  the

proceedings of the Court of Inquiry were forwarded to Army Headquarters.  

6 The proposal for the appointment of the third respondent as Army Commander was

processed on 2 May 2012 in the Ministry of Defence  (MOD)  and was endorsed by the

Defence Minister on 5 May 2012.  The proposal for the appointment of third respondent

as Army Commander of the Eastern Command was forwarded to the Cabinet Secretary

for  approval  by  the  Appointments  Committee  of  the  Cabinet4.  On  8  May  2012,  the

proposal in respect of the fourth respondent for appointment as Army Commander of the

Western Command was forwarded.  

7 On 19 May 2012, a notice to show cause was issued by the COAS to the third

respondent. A discipline and vigilance5 ban was imposed.  

8 On 24 May 2012,  when the proposal  was under  examination with  the Cabinet

Secretariat,  an  intimation  was  issued  by  the  Army  Headquarters  to  the  Ministry  of

Defence in regard to the imposition of a Type A discipline and vigilance ban on the third

respondent.  Accordingly, on 29 May 2012, the Defence Minister decided to recommend

to the ACC that the proposal for the appointment of the third respondent be kept on hold

until further inputs were received from the Army Headquarters. On 7 June 2012, the Army

Headquarters informed the Ministry of Defence that the case against the third respondent

had been closed and that the discipline and vigilance ban had been lifted.  In view of this

4 ACC 5 DV

3

development, the Defence Minister approved the proposal for conveying the lifting of the

ban to the ACC.  

9 On 15 June 2012, the ACC approved the appointment of the third respondent as

Army Commander.  

10 On 1 June 2012 and 5 July 2012, the appellant submitted representations to the

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 of

merit of all the officers in the zone of consideration and that no prejudice was caused to

6 OA No. 426 of 2012 4

the appellant.  The AFT held that the ACC approved the appointment of  the third and

fourth respondents as Army Commanders following the recommendation of the Ministry of

Defence and that the procedure stipulated for appointments to the post was duly followed.

The AFT held thus:

“…it  is  necessary  to  examine  the  record  which  has  been produced.  From the  record,  it  appears  that  for  making the selection to the post of Army Commanders, an exercise was undertaken by the Chief of Army Staff by short listing seven Lt. Generals who fulfil the eligibility criteria. While considering the case of the officers, the note – III of the recommendation of  the  Chief  of  Army  Staff  clearly  reflects  that  the  service profile and paramount cards of the seven Lt. Generals were examined by him. Complete service profile of all the seven Lt. Generals were examined by the Chief of the Army Staff.  It includes  the  exposure  of  the  officer  to  command,  staff assignment,  instructional  assignments,  the  details  of  which were  given  in  the  profile  of  all  these  officers…After consideration of service profile, he recommended the names of  respondents  No.  3  &  4  for  the  appointment  as  Army Commanders of Eastern Command and Western Command respectively.   …From the record itself it is clearly revealed that in both the tier  of  selection,  the  Chief  of  Army  Staff  and  Ministry  of Defence, the service profile of the petitioner was considered along with other officers.”

13 Before we deal  with  the submissions which have been urged on behalf  of  the

appellant, it would, at the outset, be necessary to advert to the provisions governing the

appointment of Army Commanders.  On 20 October 1986, the Government of India in the

Ministry  of  Defence issued a communication through its Joint  Secretary to the COAS

stating that the President of India had prescribed criteria for the appointment of Army

Commanders and Vice Chiefs of Army Staff. They were formulated in the following terms:

“a) The officer should be fit in every respect for such  appointment and  b) The officer should have a minimum of two years left  before the retirement age from the date of appointment as  Army Commander/ VCOAS. c) This will be applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1988. d) as a one time exception, the pay but not the status of an Army Commander will be given to those General officers, presently  holding  the  rank  of  Lieutenant  gen,  who  are

5

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 pre-

requisite 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, therefore, essential  that when an Army Commander’s vacancy arises, the two senior most officers who are eligible, in terms of the residual  service  rule,  have  completed  command  or  are  in command of a Corps.”

We proceed to  elucidate the submissions which were urged during the course of the

hearing.

15 Mr RK Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged

the following submissions:

(i) The  letter  dated  20  October  1986  indicates  that  the  appointment  of  Army

Commanders is by selection and not on the basis of seniority. This has been

reiterated in the decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India

v Lt Gen Rajendra Singh Kadyan7 (“Kadyan”);

7 (2000) 6 SCC 698 6

(ii) While rejecting the statutory complaint submitted by the appellant, the Union

government in the Ministry of Defence in its letter dated 31 January 2013 noted

that the proposal submitted by COAS was “found to be based on seniority”. In

appointing the third and fourth respondents as Army Commanders, the Union

government  overlooked  the  requirement  of  selection  and  placed  reliance

exclusively on their seniority;

(iii) In  assigning  exclusive  weight  to  the  seniority  of  the  third  and  fourth

respondents, there was no evaluation of the comparative merit of the officers in

the  zone  of  consideration  who  fulfilled  the  requirements  for  selection  as

enunciated in the letters dated 20 October 1986 and 18 November 1996;  

(iv) The names of two senior eligible officers were not recommended against each

vacancy as mandated by the policy decision dated 16 October 1992; and

(v) Under  the  Government  of  India  (Transaction  of  Business)  Rules  1961,  the

authority to select an officer for appointment as Army Commander vests with

the ACC. The Defence Minister recommended only two candidates namely, the

third  and  fourth  respondents,  thereby  depriving  the  ACC of  its  authority  to

choose the best amongst available officers in the zone of consideration.

16 On the  other  hand,  Ms Madhavi  Divan,  learned Additional  Solicitor  General  of

India, submitted that:

(i) The appeal has been rendered infructuous in view of the superannuation of the

appellant as well as the third respondent;

(ii) The case of the appellant is that since a Type A DV ban had been imposed on

the  third  respondent  on  22  May  2012,  effective  from  18  May  2012,  the

respondents  ought  to  have  immediately  appointed  the  appellant  as  Army

Commander since he was immediately next to the third and fourth respondents

in order of seniority;

7

(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

respondents,  who were the senior most  officers,  were recommended to  the

ACC for  approval.   Even assuming that  the third  respondent  was rendered

ineligible during the period of the DV ban, any of the remaining eligible officers

holding the rank of Lieutenant General could have been selected. The appellant

had no vested right  to  be selected nor  could he assume that  he would be

selected  merely  because  he  was  the  senior-most  officer  after  the  third

respondent.   

17 During the course of the hearing, the file pertaining to the selection of the third and

fourth respondents as Army Commanders has been produced by the ASG.

8

18 Kadyan (supra), was a decision in an appeal from a judgment of the High Court

which held that the post of Army Commander should not have been treated as a selection

post and ought to have been filled by seniority. The view of the High Court was reversed

by the three Judge Bench of this Court.  Elaborating on the criteria for appointment of

Army Commanders issued on 20 October 1986, this Court held thus:

“..Though  diametrically  opposite  views  are  stated,  on  a careful reading of this letter it becomes clear that “an officer should be fit in every respect for such appointment” will not merely mean that he must be physically fit or mentally fit but in every other respect. In addition, in clause (d) above in the letter while making certain exceptions what was in the mind of the authority is made clear that an officer holding the rank of Lieutenant  General  who  is  otherwise  fit  but  not  selected because of the revision of criteria will  be a clear  indication that it is a selection and not a mere promotion on the basis of seniority. Further, the expression “fit” has been brought to our notice as legally meaning “fit to be chosen” by elaborating the expression “eligible” in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn. However, the expression “fit”, which has different shades of meanings,  also means “a person to  be appointed shall  be legally eligible” and “eligible” has already been explained by us to mean “fit to be chosen”. Again, the expression “select” means “chosen or picked up”. Therefore, we are of the view that to the post of Army Commander, selection has to take place. Of course, considering the nature of rigorous standards adopted in the matter of selection of officers from the stage of Lieutenant  Colonel  onwards  up  to  the  stage  of  Lieutenant General  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.  

9

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 November 1996.  

20 The letters dated 20 October 1986 and 18 November 1996 lay down the following

criteria for appointment:

(i) The officer should be fit in every respect for appointment as Army Commander; (ii) The officer should have a minimum of two years’ service left from the date of

appointment as Army Commander before attaining the age of retirement; and (iii) The officer should have been a Commander of Corps for at least one year.

21 The emphasis on fitness in every respect is an indicator that the post is a selection

post.  This  is  buttressed  by  clause  (d)  of  the  letter  dated  20  October  1986  which

contemplates a one-time exception to officers who were otherwise found fit but were not

selected because of the revision in the criteria. An officer has no vested right to claim

promotion on the basis of seniority alone.  But that does not mean that the authority

entitled to make the appointment must ignore seniority.  Officers of the Army who attain

the rank of Lieutenant General progress through the hierarchical structure after fulfilling

rigorous  criteria  of  assessment.   The  principle  that  the  appointment  of  an  Army

Commander is made by selection does not require that the criterion of seniority should be

ignored.  The decision in  Kadyan  (supra), while emphasizing that the appointment of

Army Commanders is made by selection, holds that an officer does not have a vested

right to claim to be promoted only by dint of seniority.  The principle that seniority alone

does  not  confer  a  right  to  appointment  to  a  selection  post  does  not  mean  that  the

authority  making  the  appointments  must  be  oblivious to  seniority.   Placed  below the

COAS,  the  post  of  Army  Commander  is  of  crucial  significance  to  the  organizational

10

structure of the Army.  Seniority may be a relevant consideration: seniority brings with it

experience  of  organisation,  experience  in  handling  situations  and  experience  in

perspective  and  planning.   The  post,  however,  remains  a  selection  post.  In  making

appointments  to  such  crucial  posts  which  carry  enormous  functional  responsibilities

bearing on the defence needs of the Armed Forces and ultimately of the nation, a range

of relevant considerations can be borne in mind. It would not be appropriate in the course

of judicial review to confine the appointing authority to a narrow range of considerations.

The appointing authority is best suited to determine who 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 regard to the availability  of  vacancy and eligibility  of  officers  fulfilling  the prescribed  criteria  as  laid  down  in  policy  letter  No. 98684/JS(Pay)/86  dated  20th October  1986  modified  vide letter  No.  19(24)/96/d(MS) dated 18th November 1996.  The proposal  was  found  to  be  based  on  seniority  and  the officers were fulfilling the prescribed criteria. Accordingly, the proposal was mooted with the approval of Raksha Mantri for  the  approval  of  the  ACC  vide  MOD’s  ID  note  No.

11

12(1)/2012-D(MS)  dated  2nd May  2012.” (Emphasis supplied)

The order further records:

“4. It is on record that Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag was senior  to  Lt  Gen  Dastane  and  the  proposal  for appointment  of  the  former  as  Army  Commander  was being processed  but was only put on hold because of the DV Ban that came after the proposal had been referred to the ACC for approval. On the date Lt Gen Dalbir Singh was put under DV Ban, the ACC had not considered the same nor had made any decision thereon. The file was temporarily put on hold for seeking further details on the DV Ban from the AHQ. Admittedly, the DV Ban Type ‘A’ imposed on the officer was recalled by an Order dated 07.06.2012 for being illegal and against the established principles of the natural justice. This being the position unless the proposal of Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag  had  been rejected  by  the  Competent  Authority,  the subsequent consideration of other officer, does not arise. The request, therefore, of Lt Gen RP Dastane 01.06.2012 has no basis.”                            (Emphasis supplied)

23 The reasons for the rejection of the statutory complaint cannot be read to mean

that the selection of the third and fourth respondents as Army Commanders was based

solely on their seniority, without regard to merit or to a comparative evaluation. On the

contrary, it has been asserted in the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the

Union government that:

“…in  the  present  case  as  per  records  the  then  COAS considered the profile  of  all  eligible  Lt  Generals  who were meeting the laid down criteria including that of the appellant, and recommended the name of the Respondents No 3 and 4 on  22.3.2012  for  appointment  to  two  posts  of  Army Commanders  failing  vacant,  which  was  also  examined independently  and  concurred  by  the  Raksha  Mantri  after considering the record of service profile of all seven officers including the appellant, and the recommendations 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:

12

“..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 left before the age of retirement from the date of appointment

as an Army Commander and that the officers had commanded a Corps for at least one

year.   The file indicates that “as per practice, Army Commanders are appointed on the

basis  of  seniority  subject  to  fulfilling the above mentioned criteria”.  This  practice was

adverted to in the judgment of this Court in Kadyan (supra) where it was observed that

considering the nature of the rigorous standards adopted in selecting officers upwards

from the stage of Lieutenant Colonel up to the stage of Lieutenant General, in the usual

course it may be that the senior most officer is selected as the Army Commander. Having

adverted to this practice, this Court held that it does not debar the COAS or the Union of

India from making the selection of any other person who fulfills the necessary criteria, for

good reasons.  

25 In the present case, it is evident that the service profile of seven officers was taken

into  account  by  the  COAS  in  making  a  recommendation.  This  service  profile  was

forwarded to the Defence Minister together with the recommendation of the COAS for the

13

appointment of the third and fourth respondents. The Defence Minister was apprised of

the fact that five officers in the rank of Lieutenant General fulfilled the requirements under

the criteria governing selection to  the post of  Army Commander.  Moreover,  when the

proposal was placed for approval before the ACC, the fact that five officers fulfilled the

criteria  prescribed was a matter  which was specifically adverted to,  together with  the

recommendation of the COAS (approved by the Defence Minister) for the appointment of

the third and fourth respondents. The appointment of the fourth respondent was approved

by the ACC and the decision was notified by the Cabinet Secretariat on 24 May 2012.

Following the lifting of the type A DV ban, the ACC approved the appointment of the third

respondent, which was notified by the Cabinet Secretariat on 15 June 2012.   

26 The above sequence of events leads to the conclusion that there is no merit in the

submission  that  the  appointment  of  the  third  and  fourth  respondents  was  based

exclusively on seniority or in violation of the norms governing appointment to a selection

post by promotion.   

27 Mr RK Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

adverted to the Government of India (Transaction of 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;”

14

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. The ACC was apprised of

material facts before its approval was communicated.

28 An attempt was made to  urge that  the policy decision dated 16 October  1992

indicates that “there is a government requirement to suggest two senior eligible officers

for each Army Commander’s vacancy”. The policy decision dated 16 October 1992 deals

with  appointment  of  Corps  Commanders.   Paragraph  7  is  titled  “Parameters  for

appointment of Corps Commanders”. It lists out “factors affecting appointment of Corps

Commanders”.   In  that  context  para 7(d)  indicates the existence of  a requirement  to

suggest two senior eligible officers for each vacancy of Army Commander. The above

“requirement” is directory.  Moreover, as the Tribunal held, the extension of the zone of

consideration by considering the service profile of seven officers has caused no prejudice

to the appellant.  The finding of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be faulted.

29 For the above reasons,  we have come to the conclusion that  the submissions

which have been urged on behalf of the appellant are lacking in merit.  The appellant as

well  as  the  third  and  fourth  respondents  have  since  retired  from  service.  The  third

respondent retired from service as COAS. We note from the record, that the appeal was

admitted to hearing by an order of this Court dated 13 October 2014, after the retirement

of the appellant on 30 September 2014.  Learned counsel for  the appellant had also

urged that the grievance of the appellant should be considered, since the claim made by

15

him to a rank is involved. In order to render finality to the grievance which has been raised

before this Court, we have addressed the challenge on merits and have not found any

substance in it.  

30 The appeal  shall,  accordingly,  stand dismissed.  There shall  be no order as to

costs.       

…………...…...….......………………........J.                           [Dr DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                            [HEMANT GUPTA]

 New Delhi;  March 01, 2019

16