IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12940 of 1997 Between: Lt.Cdr.Surinder Singh No.02512H, S/o. Kartar Singh, R/o. Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary for Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2 Chief of the Naval Staff, Naval Head Quarters, New Delhi. 3 The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Submarine) Naval, Head Quarters, New Delhi. 5 The Commodore Submarines (East) INS Virbahu Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the select list of officers selected for promotion to the rank of Commander vide 107 IG as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Arts.14&16 of the Constitution of India and in contravention of rules laid down for promotion promote the petitioner to the rank of Commander on the date his immediate junior is promoted by calling for the records and to pass such other orders as are necessary in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12940 of 1997 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is to the competence of the Initiating Officer, who reviewed the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report for the period November, 1984 to June, 1985. The petitioner contends that since the Initiating Officer was not competent to assess his performance or to rate him in the Annual Confidential Reports for the aforesaid period, the ACR for the period November, 1984 to June, 1985 should not have been taken into consideration while considering him for selection to the rank of Commander. This Court, in W.P.M.P.No.7549 of 1999 dated 29.04.1999, passed the following order: “ As the promotion Board is likely to consider the issue of promotions to the post of Commander, I made the following order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner. As and when the Board meets to prepare the panel for effecting promotions to the post of Commander, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered for promotion to the post of Commander both without the confidential reports of November, 1994 to June, 1995 and with the confidential report of that year and keep the result of the promotion in a sealed cover.” Since the Selection Committee was required to consider the case of the petitioner with and without the confidential report for the said period and on being informed that the respondents had, in compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court, reconsidered the matter and had kept the result in a sealed cover, Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General, was called upon to place the said sealed cover before this Court. Learned Assistant Solicitor General has placed the sealed cover for this Court’s perusal, and on the cover being opened, it is noticed that the Special Promotion Board to review the assessment made in respect of the petitioner had considered the case of the petitioner both with and without the ACR and rejected his case for selection to the rank of Commander in both the situations. Since, even without the ACR for the period November, 1984 to June, 1985, the petitioner’s case has been rejected and he was not selected to the rank of Commander, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to go into the question whether or not the Initiating Officer had the competence to review the petitioner’s performance and rate him in the Annual Confidential Reports for the period November, 1984 to June, 1985. Since the petitioner’s case for selection to the rank of Commander has been rejected by the respondents, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 26th March, 2008 v v To 1 The Secretary for Defence, Union of India, , South Block, New Delhi. 2 Chief of the Naval Staff, Naval Head Quarters, New Delhi. 3 The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Submarine) Naval, Head Quarters, New Delhi. 5 The Commodore Submarines (East) INS Virbahu Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. 6. Two CD copies.