O.A. No. 106 of 2016. Case: Vikas Joshi Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 106 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: T.R. Jagadeesh and S. Vijayan, Advs. and For Respondents: C.B. Sreekumar, Senior Panel Counsel and Ajeen Kumar |
| Judges | S.S. Satheesachandran, Member (J) and M.P. Muralidharan, Vice Admiral, AVSM and BAR, NM and Member (A) |
| Issue | Defence |
| Judgement Date | January 10, 2017 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
|
|
Order M.P. Muralidharan, Vice Admiral, AVSM and BAR, NM and Member (A), (Regional Bench, Kochi) 1. The Original Application has been filed by Major General Vikas Joshi, No. 35284 (Retd) aggrieved at his non-empanelment to the rank of Lieutenant General. 2. This is the second round of litigation by the applicant who had earlier filed O.A. No. 156 of 2015 on the same issue. This Tribunal observing that the applicant had not exhausted the statutory remedies available to him, had vide orders dated 16 November 2015 (Annexure A11) directed the applicant to prefer a statutory complaint and the respondents to take a decision on it within a period of three months. The statutory complaint preferred by the applicant had been examined and rejected by the respondents (Annexure A13) and hence this Original Application. 3. Col S. Vijayan, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had been commissioned into the Regiment of Artillery of Army on 10 June 1978. The applicant was promoted to the rank of Major General in May 2011 with effect from 09 May 2010. The applicant has served in various coveted and sensitive appointments in his career and the last appointment held by him was that of Commandant, Selection Centre South, Bangalore. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents had modified the policy of promotions from January 2009 to that of quantification model, under which apart from other criteria, value judgment marks awarded by Members of the Selection Board were also taken into account. It was further revised by a policy letter promulgated by MS Branch in January 2011 (Annexure A2). The learned counsel submitted that the applicant as well as Respondent No. 4 (Lt Gen John George A) were promoted to the rank of Major General in their respective batches. It was further submitted that in accordance with the existing policy on promotion to the rank of Brigadier, officers belonging to the Regiment of Artillery, can either opt for promotion in the general cadre or remain in regimental vacancies. The applicant and Respondent No. 4 were promoted in the regimental cadre. There were earmarked vacancies in staff appointments in the rank of Lt General for officers who did not opt for general cadre. Promotion Board is held for an entire batch for selection to such vacancies which are called as Non-General Cadre Staff Stream (NGCSS). An officer in the rank of Major General (Non General Cadre Stream) is considered for promotion to the rank of Lt General in the NGCSS along with officers of other Arms and Services. Further, an officer in the NGCSS even if holding the rank of Lt General is also required to be considered for empanelment in his own Corps/Regiment along with other eligible Major Generals. 4. Respondent No. 4 who is from 1977 batch, as considered with his batch for promotion to the rank of Lt General in the NGCSS as well as against regimental vacancy, but was not empanelled. He was therefore reconsidered as a first review case along with 1978 batch, i.e. the batch of the applicant, was empanelled and promoted to the rank of Lt General. He was later considered for the Corps/Regimental stream vacancy of Lt General along with the applicant by a Special Selection Board (SSB) held in April 2015 (Annexure A3) for one vacancy in the Regiment of Artillery. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that on completion of the SSB, the applicant learnt from reliable sources that he was recommended for empanelment and as per policy in vogue, Respondent No. 4 may also have been deemed empanelled as he was already holding the rank of Lt General. While the results of all other SSBs were de-classified by the third week of August 2015, even though a vacancy was arising in the Regiment of Artillery on 01 September 2015, the results for Artillery were not de-classified. The learned counsel also submitted that the applicant firmly believes that the result of SSB (Artillery) was delayed and manipulated to benefit some officers. The results of the SSB (Engineers) which was declared in August 2015 (Annexure A4) indicated that two officers holding rank of Lt General were empanelled to hold one vacancy in rank of Lt General in the Corps of Engineers, indicating that for officers already holding the rank of Lt General in NGCSS, empanelment is not linked with the vacancy that exists in the Corps. 6. The applicant, apprehending that there were some moves to eliminate him from being promoted to the rank of Lt General to benefit some others, wrote a letter to the Chief of the Army Staff on the issue and also sought an interview with him (Annexure A5). The result of the Selection Board for the Artillery Regimental vacancy was de-classified in September 2015 wherein Respondent No. 4, Lt Gen John George A was empanelled (Annexure A6). The learned counsel further submitted that in accordance with Central Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 empanelment of officers to the post of Lt General requires approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), (Annexure A7). However no such approval was taken prior to promulgation of the results of the SSB wherein Respondent No. 4 was indicated as empanelled. The applicant was informed that he had not been empanelled (Annexure A1). Based on the request made by the applicant for interview with the Chief of the Army Staff he was informed that the results of the SSB held in respect of 1978 batch of Artillery were de-classified (Annexure A8). 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant again learnt through reliable sources that in the SSB held in April 2015, the applicant's name had been recommended for empanelment to the rank of Lt Gen on relative merit. Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) had changed the recommendations of the Selection Board without assigning any justifiable reasons. The applicant therefore sought another interview with the Chief of the Amy Staff (Annexure A9) but was denied the same and was informed by the MS... |
To continue reading
Request your trial