CWP No.297 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.297 of 1989 Date of Decision:25.09.2008 Lt.Col.Hari Raj Singh Mann .....petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.G.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate for Union of India **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Colonel/Brigadier having regard to his excellent service record. The petitioner was commissioned into the Indian Army as Second Lieutenant on 11.06.1961. The petitioner, thereafter served in various regiments and kept on earning his promotion to the rank of Lieutenant, Captain and then Major in due course of his service. After his promotion to the rank of Major, which is a time-scale promotion, the petitioner remained posted at various units, where he earned 'Above Average' reports. Having regard to the reports earned by the petitioner and his performance during the operation, when his turn came for consideration for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, his name was placed before the Selection Board in the year 1976. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in March 1977 and he commanded the regiment i.e. 7 Assam Rifles, where he had CWP No.297 of 1989 2 been posted on promotion. According to the petitioner, prior to the year 1975, all officers in the Armed Forces were shown their ACRs and were made to sign the same. However, with effect from the year 1975, onwards, the practice was discontinued and only the adverse remarks were to be communicated to the officers, concerned. This system continued till the year 1979 and thereafter, again the system of showing of ACRs was reintroduced. Once again, the authorities reverted back to the system of withholding the reports and presently only the adverse remarks or entries alone are communicated to the affected officers with effect from the year 1986. As per the prevalent system, there are two types of assessments made in the ACR of an officer. One is figurative assessment wherein the officer is given points out of maximum 9. The rating is: below average(1 point), low average(3 and 2 points), average(4 points), high average(6 or 5 points), above average(8 or 7 points), outstanding(9 points). The second portion of the assessment relates to the write-up known as pen-picture wherein the essential traits of the officer are commented upon. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was not communicated any adverse remark for the period 1977-1980 and therefore he presumed that his record was good for this period. The petitioner, who was expecting his further promotion on the basis of his service record, was surprised to know in the year 1985 that he has been overlooked for promotion. It is further the case of the petitioner that charges, if any, which were pending against him were dropped vide Annexure P-6 and thereafter, vide order dated 27.11.1987(Annexure P-8). After considering the statutory complaint of the petitioner, he was granted partial relief by expunging the adverse remarks against him for the year 1977-78 to 1979-1980. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not considered for further promotion, in spite of the fact that he was fully eligible. Hence CWP No.297 of 1989 3 this petition. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing written statement and it has been stated that the promotion of the officer does not depend only on the ACRs but also on the course profile, recommendations, employability, merit of the batch, honours/awards and disciplinary background, if any. It has been further stated that the promotion beyond Major is purely based on selection. The petitioner was given his due considerations on due dates and was graded unfit based on his overall profile. It has been further stated that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by any action of the respondents. As per rules, an officer is given three considerations for promotion by Selection Board, which is being applied, uniformally, after which the officer is finally superseded. The petitioner was also given all his due considerations. The policy has been formulated with the approval of the Ministry. It has further been stated that no fault can be found with the policy of the Government. Moreover, the petitioner can only claim his right to be considered for promotion but cannot claim promotion, which is otherwise subject to selection. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner and whatsoever was communicated to him, has been expunged, yet, while overlooking him for the promotion in the year 1985, they have considered one adverse remark given to him during the period 1979-80 which could not have been considered because the said adverse remark was never communicated to him. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner has already retired in the year 1989 and it has also been stated at the Bar that he has died on CWP No.297 of 1989 4 26th April, 2005, during the pendency of this writ petition. In the writ petition the prayer of the petitioner is to consider him for promotion to the rank of Colonel/Brigadier. It is well settled that no one has vested right for promotion. At the most, the petitioner has a right of consideration for promotion on the basis of his service record and eligibility. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the petitioner has any right of consideration, it will be of no use as the petitioner has already retired and also expired. In view of these facts and circumstances, no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition has been rendered infructuous. No merits. Dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. September 25,2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) neenu JUDGE