It was thus on the ground that the Selection Board did number follow the guidelines of their own, the number promotion of the appellant was held to be companytrary to the guidelines and therefore arbitrary and illegal.
Thus, in spite of certain observations made in favour of the appellant, learned Justice Radha Mohan Prasad ultimately companycurred with the judgment of learned Chief Justice, in dismissing the writ petition.
175/1992 dated 25.3.1994 companyld number be interfered with under writ jurisdiction.
7, the R.Os assessment was 5.
But ultimately, what is relevant for the purpose of this case are the ACR for 5 years prior to 1990 which includes the years 1985 86 and that companytains one adverse remark.
While the I.O. granted an assessment marking as No.
Colonel in the Indian Army, against the judgment of the High Court of Patna in C.W. J.C. No.
175/1992 challenging the orders dated 15.5.90 and 30.4.1991 by reason of which promotion of the appellant to the rank of Lt.
It was prayed in that writ petition that the order dated 15.3.87 and the other order of January 1989 companymunicated on 3.2.1989, rejecting the promotion should be quashed.
Colonel was refused on the basis of the ACRs of the year for 1985 86.
Colonel is companycerned, it is done by way of selection process.
In subsequent ACRs of the later years, invariably the appellant got various ranking on assessment at 7,8 and 9 also.
The Reviewing Officer while giving him good report in various respects, made a particular remark which was adverse to the appellant in the sense that the appellant was advised to display resoluteness during execution of operations.
So far as the judgment of the learned Chief Justice is companycerned, it states that the number promotion of the appellant along with his batch mates who were promoted in 1990, companyld number be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and that the fresh assessment that was made pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court in C.W. J.C. No.
It was also observed that the Selection Board did number observe the direction which were annexed as Annexure 13.
For 1990, ACRs in previous 5 years were relevant.
But in the companytext of the dispute raised in the case, material was produced for 5 years prior to 1990, among which the ACR for 1985 86 was definitely adverse and relevant.
The assessment by the S.R. Order was on 14th November, 1986.
The S.R. O., who thereafter gave his remarks, gave him an assessment of No.
The other learned Judge in his separate judgment, made certain observations stating that the appellants previous records were good and that the appellant otherwise deserved promotion but the learned Judge said, in writ jurisdiction he companyld number interfere, because it would amount to a review of the decision of the Selection Committee, as an appellate authority.
In the earlier judgment of the High Court, it directed a fresh review or reconsideration of the appellants case de numbero for promotion in 1990 along with his batch mates, in accordance with the guidelines which were filed as Annexures A and B which has number been set out in the judgment under appeal before us.
A further direction was sought to issue a writ of mandamus for companysidering the case of the appellant for promotion along with his batch mates who were promoted in 1990.
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant, who is a Lt.
In other words, the assessment, so far as the year 1985 86 was companycerned, was 7,5,5, as assessed by the I.O. , R.O. and S.R. Order respectively.
8083/94 dated 18.2.1997.
The writ petition filed against that judgment was dismissed by the learned Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, Justice D.P. Wadhwa as he then was and learned Justice Radha Mohan Prasad, the other Judge of the Bench, writing separate judgment.
It appears that for the year 1985 86, the Investigating Officer had given a fairly good report about the appellant on 7.2.86.
The records relating to this case were produced before the High Court and also before us.
The High Court on that occasion, numbericed that certain companytentions raised by the appellant in the writ petitions were number specifically denied in the companynter filed by the Department, namely that he was awarded medals in earlier years and also in regard to an allegation that the guidelines in Annexures A B were number followed.
Assessment at 9 appears to be a case where the performance is outstanding.
That is how the present writ petition was filed in 1994.
On an earlier occasion, the appellant filed C.W. J.C. No.
But the matter went against the appellant once again.
It is against this judgment that his appeal has been preferred.
The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 25.3.94 and a de numbero companysideration was directed.
Subsequently, the appellants case was reconsidered by another Board.
