2019 (3) TMI 1586 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment of Army Commanders - Validity of Selection of Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh, GOC-in-C, Eastern Command and Lieutenant General Sanjiv Chachra, GOC-in-C, Northern Command as Army Commanders - Based on the rationale that the post is a selection post, the Appellant assails the decision to appoint the third and fourth Respondents as Army Commanders on the ground that it was taken exclusively on the basis of seniority, sans a comparative evaluation of the merits of other officers in the rank of Lt. General who fulfilled the requirements spelt out in the letters dated 20 October 1986 and 18 November 1996. HELD THAT - The emphasis on fitness in every respect is an indicator that the post is a selection post. This is buttressed by Clause (d) of the letter dated 20 October 1986 which contemplates a one-time exception to officers who were otherwise found fit but were not selected because of the revision in the criteria. An officer has no vested right to claim promotion on the basis of seniority alone. But that does not mean that the authority entitled to make the appointment must ignore seniority. Officers of the Army who attain the rank of Lieutenant General progress through the hierarchical structure after fulfilling rigorous criteria of assessment. The principle that the appointment of an Army Commander is made by selection does not require that the criterion of seniority should be ignored. The principle that seniority alone does not confer a right to appointment to a selection post does not mean that the authority making the appointments must be oblivious to seniority. Placed below the COAS, the post of Army Commander is of crucial significance to the organizational structure of the Army. Seniority may be a relevant consideration seniority brings with it experience of organisation, experience in handling situations and experience in perspective and planning. The post, however, remains a selection post. In making appointments to such crucial posts which carry enormous functional responsibilities bearing on the defence needs of the Armed Forces and ultimately of the nation, a range of relevant considerations can be borne in mind. It would not be appropriate in the course of judicial review to confine the appointing authority to a narrow range of considerations. The appointing authority is best suited to determine who among the officers in the rank of Lieutenant General is suited for appointment against a vacancy. In the present case, it is evident that the service profile of seven officers was taken into account by the COAS in making a recommendation. This service profile was forwarded to the Defence Minister together with the recommendation of the COAS for the appointment of the third and fourth Respondents. The Defence Minister was apprised of the fact that five officers in the rank of Lieutenant General fulfilled the requirements under the criteria governing selection to the post of Army Commander. Moreover, when the proposal was placed for approval before the ACC, the fact that five officers fulfilled the criteria prescribed was a matter which was specifically adverted to, together with the recommendation of the COAS (approved by the Defence Minister) for the appointment of the third and fourth Respondents - The appointment of the fourth Respondent was approved by the ACC and the decision was notified by the Cabinet Secretariat on 24 May 2012. Following the lifting of the type A DV ban, the ACC approved the appointment of the third Respondent, which was notified by the Cabinet Secretariat on 15 June 2012. Thus there is no merit in the submission that the appointment of the third and fourth Respondents was based exclusively on seniority or in violation of the norms governing appointment to a selection post by promotion - the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the Appellant are lacking in merit. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the selection process for the appointment of Army Commanders.
2. Compliance with eligibility criteria for the appointment.
3. Consideration of seniority versus merit in the selection process.
4. Adherence to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961.
5. Allegations of procedural irregularities in the selection process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Selection Process for the Appointment of Army Commanders:
The appellant, Lieutenant General RP Dastane, challenged the selection of Lieutenant General Dalbir Singh and Lieutenant General Sanjiv Chachra as Army Commanders. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had dismissed the appellant's challenge, stating that the selection was based on a comparative study of merit among eligible officers. The Supreme Court upheld the AFT's decision, noting that the service profiles of seven eligible officers were considered, and the selection was made based on merit and seniority.

2. Compliance with Eligibility Criteria for the Appointment:
The eligibility criteria for the appointment of Army Commanders, as laid down in the letters dated 20 October 1986 and 18 November 1996, include fitness in every respect, a minimum of two years of service left before retirement, and having commanded a Corps for at least one year. The appellant argued that the selection process did not adhere to these criteria. However, the Supreme Court found that the selected officers met the eligibility criteria, and their service profiles were duly considered.

3. Consideration of Seniority versus Merit in the Selection Process:
The appellant contended that the selection was based solely on seniority, without a comparative evaluation of merit. The Supreme Court referred to the decision in Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan, which emphasized that the post of Army Commander is a selection post, not based solely on seniority. The Court concluded that while seniority is a relevant consideration, the selection was made based on a holistic assessment of merit and seniority.

4. Adherence to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961:
The appellant argued that the Defence Minister's recommendation of only two candidates deprived the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) of its authority to choose the best among available officers. The Supreme Court found no breach of the Transaction of Business Rules, as the ACC was duly apprised of all material facts and approved the appointments of the third and fourth respondents.

5. Allegations of Procedural Irregularities in the Selection Process:
The appellant raised concerns about procedural irregularities, including the imposition and subsequent lifting of a discipline and vigilance (DV) ban on the third respondent. The Supreme Court noted that the DV ban was lifted before the appointment was finalized, and the selection process was not vitiated by any procedural irregularities. The Court also observed that the appellant had no vested right to be appointed based on seniority alone.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the selection process for the appointment of Army Commanders was conducted in accordance with the prescribed criteria and procedures. The Court emphasized that the post is a selection post, and the selection was made based on a comprehensive evaluation of merit and seniority. The appeal was rendered infructuous due to the retirement of the appellant and the respondents.