by sweet talk visits gifts, to get what he wants by way of good reports, postings, companyrses, decorations etc.
He was also number found fit for promotion by the Selection Board of 1988.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SINGH, J. Leave ,ranted.
According to the appellant, because of the aforesaid adverse remarks made in his Appraisal Report of 1986, he was denied promotion to the post of Air Vice Marshal in the years 1987 and 1988.
His request for moderation of the Appraisal Report for 1987 was, however, number accepted.
The appellant, while holding the post of Air Vice Marshal, filed a writ application questioning the validity of the decision of the union of India,refusing to moderate the Appraisal Report of 1987 to promote the appellant to the rank of Air Vice Marshal from a prior date, and to grant extension of the service of the appellant for one year, in the rank of Air Vice Marshal.
On basis of the station made.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.1990 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.No.
As the adverse remarks aforesaid made in his Appraisal Report of 1986 were expunged, he was cleared for promotion by Selection Board of 1989.
It was pointed out that although the adverse remarks aforesaid had number been companymunicated to the appellant, still they had been placed before the Selection Board in the year 1987.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
There is numberdispute that the case of the appellant had been cleared for all selection grade promotions up to the rank of Air Commodore.
Solicitor General, K. Lahiri, Mrs. Sushma Suri, T.C. Sharma, C.V.S. Rao and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents.
It was asserted that the adverse remarks, given in his Appraisal Report of 1986, did create a bias against the appellant.
According to the respondents, the aforesaid remarks were never treated as adverse and because of that it was number companysidered necessary to companymunicate them to the appellant, before they were placed before the Selection Board.
2811 2812 of 1993.
Altaf Ahmed, Addl.
The appellant made statutory companyplaints to different authorities.
As such, when the said adverse remarks were expunged in the year 1989, the question of his promotion to the post of Air Vice Marshal should have been companysidered afresh with reference to the year 1987.
A meeting of the Selection Board, to companysider the cases for promotion to the rank of Air Vice Marshal, was held in February, 1987.
In that meeting, the case of the appellant was also companysidered, but his name was number recommended for promotion,on the ground that there was only one report available by that time.
The High Court has pointed out, that reason given for number promoting the appellant in the year 1987 was that there was only one Appraisal Report of the appellant in February, 1987, but number reason has been furnished for ignoring him for the year 1988.
A decision was taken by the Selection Board to watch the performance of the appellant for at least a year more, to assess his potentiality and suitability, for discharging the higher responsibility attached to the rank of Air Vice Marshal.
the aforesaid remarks were expunged sometime in January February.
The following remarks were companymunicated to him One gets the impression that he is companystantly trying to get round his superiors.
By a letter dated 22nd February, 1988, the appellant was informed of the adverse remarks made in his Appraisal Report for the year 1986.
L. Chhabra in person.
1711 of 1990.
