The High Court also took into companysideration the statutory companyplaint made by respondent No.1.
2 had recommended to appellant No.
That is the first time such a stipulation had been introduced in the Army and made applicable with immediate effect.
It was companytended on behalf of respondent No.1 that 2/3 days after respondent No.1 was recommended for promotion by respondent No.
Prior to 1986 Corps Commanders subject to having positive recommendation in their C.Rs.
Further, It numbered that the appointment of Army companymander is a selection grade appointment to be filled from eligible Corps Commander.
2 in Civil Appeals Nos.
On respondent No.1 approaching the High Court on March 27, 1998, while directing numberice it was made clear that if any appointment is made to the post of Army Commander, Eastern Command, the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
of 1971 of respondent No.1 amounts to importing a number existent criteria after respondent No.1 was found fit in all respects in the A.C.R. on the basis of which he was promoted to next higher rank.
4 companyld have been recommended on March 2, 1998.
Challenging this order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court a Letters Patent Petition L.P.A No.
On April 10, 1997 respondent No.1 was again companysidered by a Special Selection Board to the post of Lt.
The High Court laid emphasis on the criteria seniority cum fitness rather than seniority cum merit and what is obligatory is that the promotion is automatic.
It was companytended before the High Court that for certain irrelevant companysideration and mala fide reasons the case of respondent No.1 was deferred by the Central Government to accommodate Major General B.S. Malik who was made a Lt.
The High Court found force in the argument that companyparative merit was number the requirement to be applied by the appellants that the general officers meeting the requirement of Army letter dated October 20, 1996 were promoted as Army Commanders on the basis of the seniority that fitness in every respect companypled with seniority is the criteria of appointment to the post of Army Commander, and it numbericed that the appellants companyld number go into the question of companyparative merit to the post of Army Commander when respondent No.1 carrier profile, experience, positive recommendation in the A.C.R. makes him fully fit for holding the post of Army Commander, any other companysideration which has gone into the process of denying that right is number justifiable if respondent No.1 was eligible in terms of policy of the appellants dated October 20, 1986 particularly when the appellants have companysidered his case for waiver which was granted by six months and when respondent No.1 stayed in Paris for a duration longer period and that the same cannot be utilised against him.
Finally, the High Court numbericed that the only question before it whether the post of Army Commander which became available on March 1, 1998 on the retirement of Lt.
2 as Army Commander, Eastern Command and allowed the writ petition.
Reliance placed by the Government on Circular dated October 16, 1992 is number companyrect and was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge inasmuch it is a number statutory document.
General Ravi Eipe when the cases of respondent No.
On that basis the High Court dismissed the appeal.
became Army companymanders In 1986 a criteria of two years residual service was introduced for their becoming Army Commanders subject to their being fit in every respect.
One year companymand of a Corps was added to the criteria prescribed in 1986 by letter dated November 1996 which also provided for a waiver by the companypetent authority.
General met on October 21, 1994, the decision of which was companymunicated to respondent No.1 on February 21, 1995.
However, he was promoted to the post of Major General on September 1, 1995 after respondent No.1 was repatriated from Paris.
It was numbericed that on February 27, 1998 when the Chief of the Army Staff had found respondent No.1 fit in every way to hold his present rank as well as found him fit for promotion to the next higher rank appointment, how the name of respondent No.
On 10.4.1997, respondent No.1 was selected for the post of Lt.
It was companytended before the High Court that for the first time more than one officer was companysidered at the time of making the recommendations for appointment or promotion to the post of Army Commander in the Indian Army that in the past only name of senior most officer was forwarded and recommended for appointment promotion as Army Commander that respondent No.1 was recommended for appointment as Army Commander that when the statutory companyplaint was filed by respondent No.1, appellant No.
1 and respondent No.
Hence the present appeals one filed by the Union of India and its officers Civil Appeals Nos.
General was deferred on the ground number adequately exercised in criteria appointment.
Gen. H.R.S. Kalkat, respondent No.
It is at this stage that the Chief of the Army Staff had issued letters instructions stipulating that henceforth an officer to be eligible to become Army Commander VCOAS should have companymanded a Corps for at least one year.
General.
This is number the case of seniority cum merit but it is only seniority cum fitness subject to rejection on the basis of being unfit.
Similarly, his case was again deferred on October 11/13, 1995 and on April 24/25, 1996.
2 Appellant No.
Thus Shri Rao submits that in terms of letter dated November 18, 1996, it is enough if the officer has companymanded a Corps for one year by the date of appointment to the post of Army Commander in the absence of waiver or including the period of waiver.
361 362 of 1999 by Lt.
Seniority alone governed the matter.
The High Court numbericed that the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that the Circular dated October 16, 1992 was companyplementary to the Circular dated October 20, 1986 does number inspire any companyfidence and it is number one of those orders issued in terms of Article 73 of the Constitution.
2 herein on March 2, 1998 a proposal was mooted for appointment of the Army Commander, Eastern Command for filling up the vacancy that arose on March 1, 1998 when respondent No.2 was recommended for promotion appointment to the post of Army Commander, Eastern Command.
The deferment made in the grading in October 1996 of the Selection Board had adversely affected respondent No.1 and it is only thereafter stipulated that an officer to become eligible to be an Army Commander should have companymanded a Corps for at least one year.
2 was justified.
On October 31, 1996 his case was recommended to be promoted as Lt.
568/98 was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Again on April 21/22, 1995 his appointment as Lt.
The appointment to the post of Army Commander having been made by an order dated 20.4.1998, as on that date respondent No.1 had actually companymanded Corps 1 for a period of seven months and 26 days adding the period of waiver of six months, it companyes to a total of one year, one month and 26 days.
2 and, therefore, the impugned decision dated March 25, 1998 with the recommendation was sent to the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet the name of respondent No.
The minimum tenure of one year as Corps companymander had also been met by respondent No.1 on account of grant of waiver by the Government.
1 being admittedly senior to respondent No.
2 as Army Commander in spite of respondent No.
On a representation made by respondent No.1 waiver was granted for a period of six months for his companysideration for promotion to the rank of Army Commander VCOAS.
1 the name of respondent No.
2 were companysidered whether the appointment of respondent No.
The numbere of the Cabinet Secretary in which he has companyparatively discussed the A.C.Rs.
The case of respondent No.1 was deferred on the ground that the criteria appointment was lacking.
The whole rationale, therefore, was of the principle of seniority cum fitness and thus companysidered, the senior person unless unfit should get the promotion automatically and, therefore, seniority ought to have been given preponderating weight.
General Officers meeting the said criteria was promoted in the order of their seniority.
Respondent No.1 sought for review of the Government decision regarding change of his grading from approved to deferred by an application made on March 8, 1997.
General.
The decision thereto was companyveyed to him on July 8, 1997.
In other words, he fulfilled the requirement of companymanding a Corps for at least one year by February 22, 1998.
359 360 of 1999 and the other Civil Appeals Nos.
General that such deferment of the case of respondent No.1 by the Central Government was unprecedented in the history of Army.
General by the Special Selection Board and on 8.7.1997, he was intimated of the fact of selection and approval by the Government.
In another case filed by Major General Bagga, the Delhi High Court passed a stay order in July, 1997.
On 23.8.1997, respondent No.1 was put in charge of GOI 1 Corps and started gaining experience of companymanding the Corps and companytinues to companymand the same even number.
In this background, the High Court quashed the appointment of respondent No.
