Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors

2. The petitioner, who was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Indian Army on 16th December, 1967, was promoted to the rank of Major General in the year 2001. Two successive Special Selection Boards of the Indian Army recommended the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Lt. General, but the Central Government did not approve the said recommendations. General. The said decision of the Central Government was challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition on the ground that such denial of promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Lt. General was arbitrary, discriminatory, whimsical and in violation of the rules and the established procedure of selection and it also offended the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements both by the High Courts as well as this Court.

7. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the first Board for Selection was held on 27th of February, 2004, in which four names were unanimously recommended, including the name of the petitioner. Before promotions could be given in terms of the recommendations made, one of the four candidates superannuated on 31st August, 2004 and one of the others expired on 3rd September, 2004. According to the petitioner, without, however, applying its mind to the aforesaid facts, the Government returned the recommendations of the Board on 6 the ground that four names had been recommended when there were only three vacancies, though, at the relevant time, there were only two officers left against three vacancies. Despite the above, only one of the recommended candidates, Major General A. Vasudeva was promoted to the post of Lt. General by the Central Government but the petitioner's case for promotion was rejected and the said decision was declared after a period of 10 months. The petitioner has contended that he was the only officer amongst the General Officers recommended for promotion as Lt. General in the Staff Stream.

8. Aggrieved by his non-selection to the post of Lt. General, the petitioner filed a non- statutory complaint with the COAS on 17th January, 2005. The same remained unattended to and ultimately on 1st April, 2005, a second Board was held. Once again, the Board recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Lt. General. It has 7 been emphasised by the petitioner that both the Boards were headed by the functioning Chiefs of Army Staff. In the list recommending the names of five officers for promotion to the rank of Lt. General, the petitioner's name was shown at serial No.1. When the result of the second Board was declared on 30th June, 2005, the petitioner found that he had once again been superseded and the recommendation of the second Board, as far as he was concerned, was not approved by the Central Government.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent, the petitioner filed another statutory complaint on 29th August, 2005 with the Ministry of Defence challenging his supersession, but the same was rejected by a cryptic order on 29th December, 2005. It is the petitioner's case that although there were vacancies in the rank of Lt. General to which the petitioner was entitled to be promoted, the respondents did not fill up the available vacancies as the petitioner was due to retire on 31st May, 2006.

21. In the circumstances indicated hereinabove, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

22. There will be no order as to costs.