Gen. equiv the board companyprises Chairman Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee Members The other two Chiefs of Staff Member Secretary DGAFMS As numbered above, as per the Promotion Policy, the Board Members Civil Appeal No.
His statutory companyplaint there against was partially redressed whereby an assessment of the Technical Officer TO in his Annual Confidential Report ACR of 2014 was Signature Not Verified expunged.
17535 of 2017 Page 4 of 16 are empowered to assess and award the marks.
It is pertinent to numbere at this stage that as per the Promotion Policy dated 14th January, 2004 as amended by the Government of India letter dated 17th May, 2006, the selection criteria was based on following parameters Average marks of ACR 90 marks extrapolated out of 90 Total Marks for various 02 marks Qualifications like MD, DM, Ch.
However, with increase of ACR marks of the respondent after his redress, total marks of the respondent out of 93 marks became more than that of Mr. Sanjeev Chopra.
17535 of 2017 Page 3 of 16 policy of the appellants, the respondent had to be put through a fresh Review SPB.
This entitled him to fresh screening by Review SPB Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date 2017.11.10 171534 IST Reason which held its meeting on 21st March, 2017.
Marks for Military Awards of 01 marks Decorations Marks awarded by the members 02 marks of the Board Total Marks 95 marks The companyposition of the Promotion Board Medical is as per the Ministry of Defence letter No.
Gen. He is due for superannuation in this rank on 31st May, 2018.
17535 of 2017 Page 2 of 16 Staff in the year 2014 and Vishisht Seva Medal in the 2015.
After exhausting departmental remedies in the form of statutory companyplaint etc.,
17535 of 2017 Page 1 of 16 Review SPB did number empanel him for the promotional rank.
Since, the redressal was granted, as per the Civil Appeal No.
But the respondent was still denied promotion by the Review SPB by awarding marginally less marks than Sanjeev Chopra by the Board.
The entire companytroversy before the AFT, thus, pertained to the award of marks by the Board Members in the Review SPB.
The case pleaded by the respondent before the AFT was that one Mr. Sanjeev Chopra, VSM, who was junior to the respondent was empanelled by the SPB on the basis of proceedings held on 20th January, 2016.
the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal for short, AFT and has finally succeeded inasmuch as vide orders dated 2nd September, 2017, passed in O.A. No.
Directions are given to companyvene fresh Review SPB to companysider him for promotion to the rank of Lt.
This Review SPB Civil Appeal No.
dated 8th February, 1988 and for the SPB for promotion to the rank of Lt.
He has earned promotions from time to time, whenever became due and has arisen to the rank of Maj.
Average of the marks awarded by all the Board Members present, out of two 2 , is used to calculate the overall marks.
This includes GOCinCs Commendation in the year 2013, Commendation of Chief of Army Civil Appeal No.
However, vide DGAFMS letter dated 1 st March, 2016, the respondent was informed that he was number empanelled for promotion.
The Board Members may award marks number exceeding two 2 based on the overall profile of the officers, exceptional achievements, appointments held, medical category, disciplinary background, field Area Difficult Area posting.
Total marks obtained by him out of 93 marks i.e. without Board marks were more than the respondent at that time.
It was argued that since total without board marks of the respondent were more than that of Mr. Sanjeev Chopra, there was numberreason for the Board to give him Civil Appeal No.
The respondent was companysidered for promotion to the rank of Lt.
The final marks awarded to him were still below the cut off marks because of which he was number empanelled for promotion by the Review Board as well.
In the original SPB meeting, Major General Sanjeev Chopra was awarded 1.70 out of 2 marks whereas the respondent was awarded 1.50 marks.
301/DGAFMS DG 1X/87 S D Med.
Gen. in companysonance with the parameters of relevant policies and his changed profile after allotting entitled board marks as stated in the said judgment, and to also restore his seniority.
He has an outstanding academic record and brilliant service record, for which he has been decorated time and again.
Facts which are absolutely essential for disposal of this appeal may be mentioned at this stage The respondent was companymissioned in the Army Medical Corps AMC on 3rd March, 1980.
Lesser marks given to the respondent were because of the reason that marks awarded to him out of 93 were lesser than Mr. Sanjeev Chopra.
Consequent to the redressal granted to the respondent, his overall ACR profile for companysideration before the SPB improved and companysequently his merit logically came above that of the last officer empanelled in the SPB held on 20 th January, 2016.
Award of these marks, number exceeding two 2 , is based on the overall profile of the officer, exceptional achievements, appointments held, medical category, disciplinary background, field area difficult area posting.
However, even Civil Appeal No.
The respondent submitted his statutory companyplaint dated 30th June, 2016 against his number empanelment challenging certain assessments in his relevant annual companyfidential reports.
Thus, the Board Members adopted the criteria of looking into the quantified marks as the yardstick for assessing overall profile.
Weightage to the Members of the Board Board Members will have a weightage of two 2 mark for selection of the officers.
Result of the redressal was that the marks of the respondent became higher than Mr. Sanjeev Chopra which necessitated Review SPB.
1093 of 2017, the AFT has quashed the proceedings of Review SPB on the ground that it had allotted wrong board marks to the respondent.
This appeal aims at questioning the companyrectness of the said judgment of the AFT.
Gen. and equivalent by SPB held on 20 th October, 2016.
After seven months, the appellant granted partial redressal to the respondent vide their letter dated 30 th January, 2017, by way of expunging the entire assessment of the TO in the respondents ACR of 2014 on grounds of inconsistency, and directed that the respondent be companysidered for promotion by an appropriate Promotion Board.
