Case: Union of India &amp; Others Vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly, VSM

supposed to restrict it to the ACR alone. It also needs no elaboration that Board Members are the three Chiefs of Services and it can very well be presumed that they would assess an officer in an objective manner. Indubitably, higher degree of trust can be reposed in them and their assessment is not to be interdicted unless very weighty and overwhelming material is produced warranting interference while undertaking judicial review of such an exercise.18. We may mention here that the appellants had placed strong reliance upon the earlier judgment of the AFT dated 16th January, 2015 rendered in OA No. 120 of 2014 entitled Major General S.K. Chakravorty v. Union of India and Others. In that case, the AFT had held that the allocation of system of marks, i.e., award of marks by the Board Members out of two (02) marks allotted to the Board, is based on value judgment. In the impugned judgment, the AFT distinguished the said judgment with the remarks that that case was not in respect of the Armed Medical Corps wherein the assessment is based on quantified check marks. This basis of distinguishing the judgment in S.K. Chakravorty is clearly erroneous. We may note that the provision for assessment for promotion to Lt. General is same whether it is Army per se or Armed Medical Corps. The principle enunciated in S.K. Chakravorty is based on the judgments of this Court in Air Vice Marshal S.L. Chabbra, VSM (Retd.) v. Union of India & Anr., 1993(3) S.C.T. 507 : (1993) Supp (4) SCC 441, Major General I.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 383 , Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 305 , and Surinder Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., 2008(1) S.C.T. 582 : (2008) 2 SCC 649. 19. Having said that, insofar as the present case is concerned, we find it difficult to disagree with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the AFT in the facts of this case, even if some of the observations of the AFT may not be correct. Most important feature which is noted by the AFT and could not be disputed by the appellant is the manner in which exercise was undertaken while holding SPB meeting on 20th January, 2016. Even when the Board Members were entitled to give marks to the candidates on the basis of overall profile that was not done. On the contrary, the marks given to those officers who were considered in that SPB, were strictly on the basis of marks obtained by them out of 93 marks.20. That becomes clear from the record produced by the learned ASG for our perusal at the time of hearing. This is the case in respect of all officers, without any exception. The AFT is right in observing that in the meeting held on 20th January, 2016 Board Marks to all officers who are considered commensurate with the quantified marks of the candidates. Thus, the Board Members adopted the criteria of looking into the quantified marks as the yardstick for assessing overall profile.21. In the original SPB meeting, Major General Sanjeev Chopra was awarded 1.70 out of 2 marks whereas the respondent was awarded 1.50 marks. Lesser marks given to the respondent were because of the reason that marks awarded to him out of 93 were lesser than Mr. Sanjeev Chopra. Result of the redressal was that the marks of the respondent became higher than Mr. Sanjeev Chopra which necessitated Review SPB. This Review SPB meeting has to be on the same standards which were adopted in original SPB meeting. It has to be on the assumption as if case of the respondent is considered in the original SPB, but with revised profile. In the SPB held on 20th January, 2016, had the revised marks of the respondent available, which were more than the quantified marks of Sanjeev Chopra, the respondent would have certainly got 1.70 out of 2 marks by the Board. It is stated at the cost of repetition that was the criteria adopted by the Members of the Board itself viz. awarding the marks (out of 2) in line with the quantified marks. Having not undertaken the independent exercise of looking into the "overall profile" in the SPB held on 20th January, 2016 and instead assigning the marks to all the officers out of 2 marks, on the basis of quantified marks of the candidates which they had received out of 93 marks by treating the same as "overall profile", when it comes to Review SPB the appellant is supposed to stick to the same criteria. Only that would show fairness in approach, which would also be in conformity with the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It is because of the reason that Review SPB is nothing but extension of original SPB, wherein the respondent was supposed to be considered on the same parameters as if he was participating in promotion process undertaken in original SPB.22. Other aspect which is highlighted by the AFT in the impugned judgment is equally significant, viz., Noting No. 3 of the Board proceedings was factually incorrect. As pointed out above, as per Noting No.3, the respondents CR merit in chance one changed from 16th position to 15th position among 18 officers considered for only 6 vacancies. This Noting gave the impression that even after the redress, the chances of promotion of the respondent hardly improved. On the contrary, fact is that after the redress, position of the respondent had jumped from 16th to 7th. Another significant aspect which was omitted was that with this jump, his quantified check marks (i.e. out of 93) became more than Major General Sanjeev Chopra, who was promoted after his assessment in the original SPB even when he was junior to the respondent. But for this error, there was a possibility of different outcome even on value judgment of the respondent by the Board Members.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that insofar as award of 93 marks, out of 95 marks, is concerned that can be calculated arithmetically on the basis of ACR, academic qualifications as well as military awards and decorations. Discretion is given to the Board to give weightage out of 2 marks and while exercising these discretions the Members of the Board are supposed to keep in mind the overall profile of the concerned officer, exceptional achievements, appointments held, medical category, disciplinary background, fieldarea posting.10. Insofar as the respondent is concerned, he was assigned 87.90 marks on the basis of ACR, i.e., against extrapolated out of 90 marks, when his case was considered for promotion originally by the SPB on 20th January, 2016. However, after redressal of his statutory complaint which resulted in expunging of some adverse remarks in ACR of the year 2014, these extrapolated out of 90 marks stood enhanced to 88.50. However, in the Review SPB, the Board stuck to the same marks which were awarded by the first Promotion Board. In this manner, though there was some increase in the total marks awarded to the respondent (as a result of increase in marks on account of ACRs). The final marks awarded to him were still below themarks because of which he was not empanelled for promotion by the Review Board as well. The entire controversy before the AFT, thus, pertained to the award of marks by the Board Members in the Review SPB.There is no dispute insofar as legal propositions advanced by the learned ASG are concerned. Undoubtedly, the Members of the Board are empowered to award marks out of the two marks which are reserved for them. For this purpose, it is not the ACR alone but the entire profile of an officer which is to be looked into. Insofar as, marks for ACR are concerned these have already been awarded under the head `average marks of ACR extrapolated out of 90. It shows that significant importance is attached to the ACRs inasmuch as 90 marks out of 95 marks are to be assigned on the basis of ACRs. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that while awarding marks out of the two marks reserved for the Members of the Board, they can examine the overall profile of the officer and are not supposed to restrict it to the ACR alone. It also needs no elaboration that Board Members are the three Chiefs of Services and it can very well be presumed that they would assess an officer in an objective manner. Indubitably, higher degree of trust can be reposed in them and their assessment is not to be interdicted unless very weighty and overwhelming material is produced warranting interference while undertaking judicial review of such an exercise.Having said that, insofar as the present case is concerned, we find it difficult to disagree with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the AFT in the facts of this case, even if some of the observations of the AFT may not be correct. Most important feature which is noted by the AFT and could not be disputed by the appellant is the manner in which exercise was undertaken while holding SPB meeting on 20th January, 2016. Even when the Board Members were entitled to give marks to the candidates on the basis of overall profile that was not done. On the contrary, the marks given to those officers who were considered in that SPB, were strictly on the basis of marks obtained by them out of 93 marks.20. That becomes clear from the record produced by the learned ASG for our perusal at the time of hearing. This is the case in respect of all officers, without any exception. The AFT is right in observing that in the meeting held on 20th January, 2016 Board Marks to all officers who are considered commensurate with the quantified marks of the candidates. Thus, the Board Members adopted the criteria of looking into the quantified marks as the yardstick for assessing overall profile.21. In the original SPB meeting, Major General Sanjeev Chopra was awarded 1.70 out of 2 marks whereas the respondent was awarded 1.50 marks. Lesser marks given to the respondent were because of the reason that marks awarded to him out of 93 were lesser than Mr. Sanjeev Chopra. Result of the redressal was that the marks of the respondent became higher than Mr. Sanjeev Chopra which necessitated Review SPB. This Review SPB meeting has to be on the same standards which were adopted in original SPB meeting. It has to be on the assumption as if case of the respondent is considered in the original SPB, but with revised profile. In the SPB held on 20th January, 2016, had the revised marks of the respondent available, which were more than the quantified marks of Sanjeev Chopra, the respondent would have certainly got 1.70 out of 2 marks by the Board. It is stated at the cost of repetition that was the criteria adopted by the Members of the Board itself viz. awarding the marks (out of 2) in line with the quantified marks. Having not undertaken the independent exercise of looking into the "overall profile" in the SPB held on 20th January, 2016 and instead assigning the marks to all the officers out of 2 marks, on the basis of quantified marks of the candidates which they had received out of 93 marks by treating the same as "overall profile", when it comes to Review SPB the appellant is supposed to stick to the same criteria. Only that would show fairness in approach, which would also be in conformity with the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It is because of the reason that Review SPB is nothing but extension of original SPB, wherein the respondent was supposed to be considered on the same parameters as if he was participating in promotion process undertaken in original SPB.22. Other aspect which is highlighted by the AFT in the impugned judgment is equally significant, viz., Noting No. 3 of the Board proceedings was factually incorrect. As pointed out above, as per Noting No.3, the respondents CR merit in chance one changed from 16th position to 15th position among 18 officers considered for only 6 vacancies. This Noting gave the impression that even after the redress, the chances of promotion of the respondent hardly improved. On the contrary, fact is that after the redress, position of the respondent had jumped from 16th to 7th. Another significant aspect which was omitted was that with this jump, his quantified check marks (i.e. out of 93) became more than Major General Sanjeev Chopra, who was promoted after his assessment in the original SPB even when he was junior to the respondent. But for this error, there was a possibility of different outcome even on value judgment of the respondent by the Board Members.