1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3762 OF 2002 V.B. Gaur ..... Petitioner. V/s Union of India & anr. ..... Respondents. ---- Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b Mr. Abhay R. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Pradhan with Mr. D.A. Dubey and Mr. Y.K. Mishra for the respondents. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 25th March, 2008 P.C.: 1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- "a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of these Writs or any other Writ/Direction/Order, calling for the records of this case from the office of the Respondent after going through the same and after hearing the parties set aside and quash the Confidential Reports of the Petitioner for the years 1988 to 1993 and 2 1998 to 2000 and further direct the Respondent to promote the Petitioner to the Post of Colonel after holding and declaring that the Petitioner is entitled for the said Promotion; aa. issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other Writ in the nature of this Writ or any other Writ/Direction/order setting aside the Order dated October 22, 2002 annexed hereto as Exhibit "D" further directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner w.e.f. 1.11.2002, promote the Petitioner as Full Colonel w.e.f. August 2000 and allow the Petitioner an extension of two years till the age of 58 years as applicable to the posts of Full Colonel instead of 56 years in case of Lt. Colonel; b. Pending final hearing and disposal of this Writ Petition, direct the Respondent to promote the Petitioner to the post of Colonel; c. Grant ad-interim, interim relief in terms of prayer (b) hereinabove; d. Pass any other or further order as may 3 be found appropriate and necessary in the nature and circumstance of this case. e. Award costs." 2. The Petitioner, at the time when the Petition was filed, was holding the post of Lt. Colonel in Indian Army and he was also a Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. The Petitioner's case is that he was commissioned in AMC on 15/09/1974. The case of the petitioner is that he was eligible and due for promotion to the post of Colonel on account of his merit and seniority. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the promotion exercise which was carried out by the Selection Board in August, 2000, he was not selected by the Board and which was due to the confidential reports which were prepared by the assessing authority. It is the Petitioner's case that his confidential reports for the years 1988 to 1993 were prepared by Ltd. Colonel K.M. Rajoo. It is his case that Colonel Rajoo was not qualified to function as Professor and Head of the Department and, therefore, was not competent to prepare his confidential reports for the years 1988 to 1993. It is also his case that since Colonel Rajoo was interested in continuing as Professor and Head of the Department, he deliberately downgraded the Petitioner's assessment and recommendations in order to ensure that the Petitioner would not be promoted. It is also the case of the Petitioner that his confidential reports 4 for the years 1998 to 2000 were initiated by Lt. Colonel Uma Shankar. It is his case that Uma Shankar was of the same rank that of the Petitioner and, therefore, was not competent to make recommendations in his confidential reports. It is the case of the Petitioner that, therefore, the said confidential reports were liable to be expunged. He has further stated that he had filed a non-statutory complaint dated 18/12/2000 against his supersession for promotion to the next higher rank of Colonel. It is stated that the competent authority, however, directed that the assessment of SRO in CR 1990- 91 was set aside. However, the assessment in respect of other years was not set aside. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that, therefore, the Petitioner ought to have been selected for promotion to the post of Colonel. 3. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The record indicates that after the representation was filed by the petitioner, by a reasoned order dated 27/09/2001 partial redressal was granted to the Petitioner by way of setting aside the assessment of SRO in CR 1990-91. After the partial redressal was granted, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Colonel was reviewed by the Selection Board held on 15/11/2001 for the board of 30th August, 2000 and 16th May 2001. However, he was found unfit for promotion by both the Boards. Further, it can be seen that the petitioner had not independently challenged 5 the adverse Confidential Reports. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. No case is made out by the petitioner for grant of reliefs as claimed by him in the Petition. 4. Petition is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)