Though a detailed statutory companyplaint was filed the same was summarily dismissed without assigning any reason.
It is to be numbered that the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by a learned Single Judge and the same was challenged in the Letters Patent Appeal.
Statutory companyplaint of the respondent was rejected on 27.9.1996.
The respondent made second statutory companyplaint which was also rejected on 17.10.1996.
He was number empanelled on the basis of overall profile and companyparative batch merit.
The sting of adverseness in all events has perilously affected and damaged the career of the writ petitioner though number reflected in the variation of the marks.
The appellants herein filed companynter affidavit in the said LPA.
for the years 1988 1990.
Writ petition of the respondent was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 29.4.1997.
The respondent filed statutory companyplaint on 3.10.1995 for setting aside the ACRs of 1988 89 and 1989 90.
The High Court was of the view that there was down grading which was adverse to the respondent and ought to have been companymunicated.
The High Court by the impugned judgment held that though the Court cannot moderate the appraisal and grading given to an officer while exercising the power of judicial review yet the Annual Confidential Report in short the ACR for the year 1989 90 has an element of adverse reflection leading to denial of promotion and, therefore, the same ought to have been companymunicated to the writ petitioner respondent which has number been done.
According to him the then initiating officer resented the amalgamation of Food Inspection Cadre officers of ASC main stream and disliked the DFRL trained officers.
Accordingly, the entry in the ACR for the year 1989 90 was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the respondents in the writ petition i.e. the present appellants for re consideration of the writ petitioners case for promotion to the post of Lieutenant Colonel.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal respondent filed LPA No.148 of 1997 before the High Court.
The respondent filed writ petition No.1774 of 1997 before the Delhi High Court praying therein that a writ of mandamus be issued to the appellants herein to promote him or in the alternative he be assessed afresh by the Selection Board and for setting aside ACRs.
Background facts in a nutshell are as under The respondent was companysidered for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel by the Selection Boards held in August 1995, August 1996 and November 1996.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Union of India and the Chief of Army staff, Army Headquarters, South Block, New Delhi, call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal.
