O.A. No. 23 of 2009. Case: Brigadier U.K. Chopra Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. No. 23 of 2009
CounselFor Appellant: S.S. Pandey, Adv. and For Respondents: Jyoti Singh, Adv.
JudgesManak Mohta, J. (J) and Z.U. Shah (A), Members
IssueDefence Law
Judgement DateDecember 03, 2010
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal

Judgment:

(Principal Bench At New Delhi)

  1. The Applicant filed O.A 23/2009 before this tribunal praying that the order dated 05/08/2009 (Annexure A-1) rejecting his statutory complaint dated 09/03/2009 be quashed and the Respondents be directed to allot vacancies for promotion to the rank of Major General from unutilised vacancies released by Phase II of AV Singh Committee Report on pro rata basis and decide his merit in selection board without giving weightage for NDC Course.

  2. The Applicant was commissioned in the Army (Signals) on 12/05/1974. During his service he was awarded Chief of Army Staff Commendation Card and was approved for promotion to Brigadier in December 2004. The Applicant avers that his batchmates started getting promoted in June 2005 and his chance for promotion came up in December 2005. He was thus placed at a disadvantage because his batchmates, who were promoted in June 2005, were detailed for NDC Course in December 2006. The Applicant was not so detailed as he became overage for the same.

  3. The Applicant states that in 2008 the second phase of AV Singh Committee recommendations was implemented. Vacancies for promotion were allotted on pro rata basis based on the number of candidates available. On 21/01/2009 the Respondents changed the policies and method of selection. Selection henceforth would be according to quantification method (Annexure A-3) which gave an advantage to officers who had done the NDC Course. The Applicant avers that he was thus disadvantaged.

  4. The Applicant was not empanelled for promotion to the rank of Major General by No 1 promotion board held on 09 Jan 09 and he was informed of the same on 10/02/2009. The Applicant states that only three officers of his batchmates were empanelled; whereas in the earlier batch of 1973 six out of ten officers were empanelled and subsequently eight were promoted out of twelve considered. The Applicant has given the following details to show how 1975 batch was discriminated against allotment of vacancies:

    Ser No

    Batch

    No of Brigs

    Retirement vacancies available

    Additional vacancy

    Total Maj Gen approved

    % success

    Remarks

    (a)

    1973

    10

    08

    -

    06

    0.60

    Pre AVSC II

    (b)

    1974

    12

    08

    -

    08

    0/67

    Pre AVSC II

    (c)

    1975

    12

    Nil*

    02**

    03

    0.25

    Post AVSC II

    (d)

    1976

    09

    09

    -

    -

    1.0

    Post AVSC II

  5. The Applicant submitted a statutory complaint on 05/08/2009. The same was rejected on the grounds that vacancies were calculated for a period of twelve months subsequent to expiry of previous panel. No explanation was given why the method of selection had been changed to give advantage to his batchmates who had done the National...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT