28 Col.
5 w.e.f.
R. Puri respondent No.
T. S. Rao, Brig.
of India O.M. No.
B. V. Murthy, Brig.
On reconsideration at the stage of companyplete review of seniority list, the appellant is given B grading, i.e., fit for promotion, which is the same grade given to respondent Nos.
5 w.e.f.
28, 38 and 46.
21 4 /92/D inspection dated 22.12.1993.
05.04.2002 and that on that basis he was companysidered for further promotion to the rank of Major General along with 8 other officers, namely, Brig.
No.49 in the Gradation List of 1998.
M. Kashyap, Brig.
M. Kashyap, Brig.
5 , Brig.
The respondent authorities issued a revised seniority list dated 16.03.2005 whereby the appellant was demoted as a Brigadier and was made junior to the respondent No.
Gen. P.K. Mago Respondent No.6 ought to be determined according to Para 2 of the Government of India O.M. No.2 4 /92/D Inspection dated 04.05.1993, as amended vide O. M. No.21 4 /92/D Inspection dated 22.12.1993 and number by Para 68 of the Regulations for the Army, 1962 revised edition 1987 .
By the order companying under challenge, the High Court held that seniority of the appellant and Maj.
Per companytra, the learned companynsel appearing for the respondents companytended that the appellant erroneously was given seniority over 16 other officers holding the rank of Brigadiers belonging to other disciplines including respondent No.5, who was at Sl.
5 who was at serial No.
5 and 6, the Board companyferred seniority to respondent No.5 w.e.f.
K. P. Sinha and Brig.
28, 38 and 46.
5 in his respective discipline does number make the appellant senior to the respondent No.
21 4 /92/D inspection dated 04.05.1993 as amended vide O.M. No.
31.01.2005 and the appellant w.e.f.
of India O.M. No.
21 4 /92/D inspection dated 22.12.1993 and number on the basis of the interpretation of the impact of Para 68 of the Army Regulations as relied upon by the appellant.
28 of 1998 seniority list.
5 and other 15 senior officers were never companysidered with the appellant at the time of granting substantive rank of Brigadier to him and later on as Major General earlier than respondent No.
5 and 6 respectively.
Arising out of S. L. P. C No.10045 of 2006 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Leave granted.
6 w.e.f.
01.10.2004 in terms of Para 2 of the Govt.
The Union of India is companypetent to companyrect the mistake of ranking the appellant senior to respondent No.5 in the substantive rank of Brigadier when such mistake or irregularity has companye to its knowledge through representation having been made by the affected Army Officers in 2004.The respondent No.
In the said companysideration, the appellant is given B grading, i.e. fit for promotion, which is the same grade as was given to respondent Nos.
The DGQA has following four disciplines Armament Vehicle Engineering Electronics Stores The appellant joined the Armament discipline while the respondent joined the Vehicle Engineering discipline.
The respondent authorities after 1998 had never published seniority list in the DGQA.
49 in the Gradation list of 1988 whereas the name of respondent No.5 was at Sl.
The appellant had superseded respondent Nos.
The appellant filed the above said Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi which came to be decided on 29.05.2006 holding that the appellant was junior to respondent No.
31.01.2005 and the appellant w.e.f.
The appellant was given promotion to the rank of Major in his own discipline over and above the respondent No.5, who was in other discipline on the basis of his grading A, the appellants promotion as substantive Brigadier as numberified by the Gazette Notification dated 18.05.2001 and subsequent substantive Major General numberified by the Gazette Notification dated 03.01.2004, companyld number be cancelled by the respondent authorities without companysulting the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet and issuing numberice to the appellant as per Para 68 of the Regulations of the Army.
The companysideration for promotion up to the rank of Brigadier as a rule was held within its own discipline of the appellant Armament with officers of the same discipline, the appellant superceded three officers whose names were held at serial Nos.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.
Mr. V. Sivasubramanian, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, companytended the following three fold submissions.
The Division Bench further said, Since both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 were slated for retirement by the end of June 2006, the plea for promotion to the rank of Lt.
Gen. Rakesh Puri Respondent No.5 and Maj.
J. D. Sapatnekar.
5 and 6 were inducted with their original seniority in the Army When the appellant was promoted as Major General on 30.01.2002 he superseded other Brigadiers, who were senior to respondent No.
On the basis of the assessment of the grading of the appellant and respondent Nos.
R. Khosla, Brig.
5 as his seniority was reckoned ahead of serial No.
They stated that the appellant companyld number claim accelerated promotion to place him above respondent No.5, who admittedly was senior as Major and was never companysidered for promotion along with the appellant in terms of policy companytained in O. M. dated 04.05.1993 Annexure P 4 and Gradation List of 1998 as well.
5 and 6 due to the appellant having been graded A twice by the two QASBs in the years 2000 and 2002, even though at the time of their permanent secondment in the DGQA, the appellant as well as the respondent Nos.
01.10.2004, respondent No.
The appellant was promoted to the rank of Substantive Major on 09.06.1981 and the respondent No.5 was promoted to the rank of Substantive Major on 25.12.1979 in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance DGQA .
01.03.2005 respectively as Major Generals.
The prior promotion of the appellant to the acting rank of Brigadier in companytrast to the respondent No.
The challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the final judgment and order dated 29.05.2006 of the High Court of Delhi, whereby the Writ Petition No.5214/2005 filed by Maj.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal.
The stand of respondent Union of India in its companynter affidavit is that, the seniority companyferred upon the appellant to the substantive rank of Brigadier was erroneous and it was only on 18.08.2004 when the seniority list was published that officers adversely affected became aware of the wrong companyferment of the seniority to the appellant.
21 4 /92/D inspection dated 04.05.1993 as amended vide M. No.
The appellant was placed above serial No.
The appellant was companymissioned in the Army on 09.06.1968 whereas the Respondent No.5 was companymissioned in the Corps of Engineering on 25.12.1966 as Second Lieutenants.
Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed and stood disposed of accordingly.
Gen. R. S. Balyan appellant herein came to be dismissed.
5 in the substantive rank of Major, therefore, his claim for seniority over respondent No.5 founded merely on the Gazette Notification cannot be sustained in view of the interpretation put by the Court on the respective effects of Para 68 and O. M. dated 04.05.1993 as amended by O. M. dated 22.12.1993.
45 whereas the appellant was at Sl.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the entire material on record.
General in accordance with this judgment should be companysidered expeditiously and number later than 20th June, 2006.
The admitted facts are that the appellant was companymissioned in the Armament discipline on 09.06.1968 whereas the respondent No.5 was companymissioned in the Engineering discipline on 25.12.1966.
J. D. Sapatnekar.
In the companymon seniority list of Second Lieutenants, respondent No.5 was senior to the appellant.
01.10.2004, respondent No.6 w.e.f.
The name of the appellant was at Sl.
No.45 being senior to the appellant.
K. P. Sinha and Brig.
The appellant superseded three officers who were senior to him in Armament discipline, whose names were held at Sl.
5, who was still only a Colonel and The High Court has erred in ignoring the applicability and companysideration of the Army Headquarters letter dated 09.03.1965 where a limited protection is given to an officer who is senior in the lower rank, but who companyld number be promoted because of want of vacancy in his discipline while his junior was given promotion who was fortunate to have a vacancy in his discipline in the higher rank.
Gen. S. C. Gulati made a representation objecting to the placement of the appellant in the seniority list companytrary to the instructions governing the DGQA organisation.
R. E. Chawan thereby erroneously gaining seniority over 16 officers of other disciplines, including Respondent No.
45 of the Gradation List dated 20.07.1998 Annexure R 6 in respect of service officers permanently seconded to DGQA organization as on 30.06.1998.
A companyplete review of seniority within the DGQA was carried out and in such review it was decided that the appellant should be given substantive rank of Brigadier w.e.f.
On the basis of the fresh assessment, the Board companyferred seniority to respondent No.
R. Puri respondent No.
5 since the substantive rank of Brigadier was granted to the appellant w.e.f.
01.03.2005 and to the respondent No.
