UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY GANGULY. VSM
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 61, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2017] l l S.C.R. 61 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
v. 
MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY GANGULY. VSM 
(Civil Appeal No. 17535of2017) 
NOVEMBER IO. 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
... 
Service Laiv: 
Promotion - To the rank of Lieutenant General in Indian 
Army - Respondent considered for promotion by Special Promotion 
Board (SPB) but not empcmelled, An Officer junior to him was one 
of the promoted officers - Pursuant to his statutot:v complaint,, his 
assessment in one of the relevant ACRs was expunged - It was 
directed that he be considered for promotion - He was considered 
A 
B 
by review SPB, but even then not empanelled for promotion -
D 
Re.1pondent approached Armed Forces Trilnmal - Tribunal quashed 
the proceedings al Review SPB· on the ground tlwt it had allotted 
wrong Board marks to the respondent - On appeal, held: Review 
SPB is nothing but extension of original SPB - Respondent was 
supposed to be considered on the same parameters as if he was 
participating in promotion process undertaken by original SPB -
The criteria adopted by original SPB in awarding board marks were 
not adopted by the Review SPB - Had the Review SPB adopted the 
same criteria, the respondent would have got higher marks than 
the last promoted officer - Projection ol wrong facts before the 
Board Members in respect of CR merit of the respondent also resulted 
in award ~/'lesser marks by the Review SPB. 
Dismissing the appeal, 'the Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1. 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 
G 
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 
61 
H
62 
SUPREME COURT REPOKTS 
!2UI 7j i l S.l~.R. 
A 
ACR~ inasmuch as 9U marks out of 95 marks arc lo he assigned 
on 1hc basis of ACRs. Therefore, it cannot he dispu1ed that while 
awarding marks out of the 1wo marks reserved tor the \lcmbers 
of the Board, they can examine the overall profile of !he officer 
and arc not supposed tu res1rict it to the ACR alone. It also 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
needs r o elaboration that Board l\'1cntbcrs arc the three Chiefs 
of Services and it can very well be presumed that they would 
assess an officer in an objective manner. Indubitably, hiigher 
degree of trust can be reposed in them and their assessment is 
not to be interdilcted unless very weighty and overwhelming 
material is produced warranting interference while undertaking 
judicial review of such an exercise. [Para 171(70-D-F[ 
2. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal wrongly 
distinguished its judgment passed in the case of /lfaj. Gener11/ 
S.K. Clwlmn·or(r vs. Union ofb11li111111d Ors. (which was relied on 
by the respondent), with the remarks that that case was not in 
respect of the Ar'11ed Medical Corps wherein the assessment is 
based on quantified check marks. This basis of distinguishing 
the judgment in S.K. Cltakravorty is clearly erroneous. The 
provision for assessment for promotion to Lt. General is same 
wh~ther it is Army per se or Armed Medical Corps.[ Para 181 [70-
G-H; 71-AI 
Air Vice Marshal SL Clwbbra VSM ( Retd.) v. U11iui: 
ofI11dia & Anr. (1993) Suppl. 4 SCC
441: 11993[ 2 
Suppl. SCR 659; Maior General I.PS. Dewan v. Uniu11 
of India & Or.1. (1995) 3 SCC 383 : [19951 2 SCR 
532; Dalpal Abasaheb So/1111ke & Ors. v. fJr. B. S. 
Mahajan & Ors (1990) I SCC 305; Surinder Shukla v. 
Union al India & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 649 : (2008] I 
SCR 449 - referred to. 
3. It is difficult to disagree with the ultimate conclusion 
arrived at by the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, even if 
some of the observations of the Tribunal may not be correct. 
Most important fcuture which is noted by the Tribunal and could 
not be disputed by the appellant is the manner in which exercise 
was undertaken while holding SPB meeting on 20'" January, 2016. 
Even when the Board Members were entitled to give marks to
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY 
GANGUL Y, VSM 
the candidates on the basis of overall prolile, that was not done. 
On the contrary, the murks given to those officus who were 
considered in that SPB, wcrc·s1rictly on the basis of marks obtained 
hy them out of 93 marks. The Tribunal is right in observing that 
in the meeting held on 20'" .January. 201(> Board Marks to all 
officers who arc 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. [Purus 19, 201171-C-FI 
4. In the original SPB meeting, one omccr junior to the 
respondent was awarded 1.70 out of 2 marks whereas the 
respondent was awarded 1.50 marks. Le,scr marks given to the 
respondent were because of the reason that marks awarded to 
him out of 93 were lesser than that omcer. Result of the redress al 
was that the marks of the respondent became higher than that 
oficer which necessitated Review SPB. This Review SPB meeting 
6J 
A 
B 
c 
has to be on the same standards which were adopted in original 
D 
SPB 111ccting. It has to be on the assun1ption as if case of lhc 
respondent is considered in the original SPB, but with revised 
prolile. In the SPB held on 20"' January, 2016, had t·he revised 
marks of the respondent available, which were more than the 
quantified marks of the other officer, the respondent would have 
certainly got J.70 out of 2
marks by the Board. Having not 
undertaken the independent exercise of looking into the "overall 
profile" in the SPB held on 20'' 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 
E 
out of 93 marks by treating the same as "overall profile", when it 
comes to Review Sl'B 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 Sl'B 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. JPara 21][71-G; 72-A-D] 
5. Noting No. 3 of the Board proceedings was also factually 
incorrect. As per Noting No.3, the. respondent's CR merit in 
F 
G 
H
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] I l S.C.R. 
A 
chance one changed from 16'" position to 15'" position among 18 
officers con1sidered for only 6 vacancies. This Noting gave the 
impression that even after the redress, the chances of promotion 
of the respo'1dent hardly improved. On the contrary, fact is that 
after the redress, position of the respondent had jumped from 
B 
16" to 7'". Another significant aspect which was omittc!d was that 
with this jump, his quantified check marks (i.e. out of 93) became 
more than the other officer 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 
C 
Members. [Para 22)[72-E-G] 
6. It is made clear that in any future selections, it would 
always be open to the Members of the Board to award the marks 
(out of 2 marks assigned for this purpose) keeping in view the 
overall profile of the officers as per Promotion Policy dated 14'" 
D 
January, 2004 and as amended vide letter dated 17'" May, 2006. 
[Para 23 )[72-H; 73-AJ 
E 
F 
Case Law Reference 
11993) 2 Suppl. SCR 659 
referred to 
Para 18 
[1995) 2 SCR 532 
referred to 
Para 18 
(1990) l sec 305 
referred to 
Para 18 
!2008) l SCR 449 
referred to 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 17535 
of2017 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2017 in O. A. No. 
1093 of 20JV and Judgment and Order dated
05.10.2017 in M.A. No. 
1252of2017 of the Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi. 
Maninder Singh, ASG, Harish V. Shankar, Raj iv Nanda, Ms. Nisha 
G 
Mohandas, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ad vs. for the Appellants. 
H 
Mukul Rohatgi, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advs., Sudarshan Rajan. 
Ms. Shriya Chauhan,ArchitArora, Ramesh Rawat, Karanjot Singh,Advs. 
for the Respondent.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY 
65 
GANGULY, VSM 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
A. K. SIKRI, J. I. Respondent herein belongs to the Army 
Medical Corps. He is the Major General and aspires to become 
Lieutenant General (Lt. Gen.), which is next higher rank in his cadre. 
First Special Promotion Board (SPB), for this purpose was held on 20'h 
Januaiy, 20 16 but he was not empanelled to the rank of Lt. Gen. by the 
said Board. His statutory complaint there against was partially redressed 
whereby an assessment of the Technical Officer (TO) in his Annual 
Confidential Report (ACR) of2014 was expunged. This entitled him to 
·fresh screening by Review SPB which held its meeting on 21" March, 
2017. However, even Review SPB did not empancl him for the 
promotional rank. After exhausting departmental remedies in the form 
C 
of statutory complaint etc .. the respondent approached the Armed Forces 
Tribunal (for short, 'AFT') and has finally succeeded inasmuch as vi de 
orders dated 2"'1 September, 20 l 7, passed in O.A. No. I 093of2017, the 
AFT has quashed the proceedings of Review SPB on the ground that it 
had allotted wrong board marks to the respondent. Directions are given 
D 
to convene fresh Review SPB to consider him for promotion to the rank 
of Lt. Gen. in consonance with the parameters of relevant policies and 
his changed profile after allotting entitled board marks as stated in the 
said j udgmcnt, and to also restore his seniority.
This appeal aims at 
questioning the correctness of the said judgment of the AFT. 
2. Facts which arc absolutely essential for disposal of this appeal 
may be mentioned at this stage: 
E 
3. The respondent was commissioned iri the Anny Medical Corps 
(AMC) on 3"1 March, 1980. He has an outstanding academic record and 
brilliant service record, for which he has been decorated time and again. 
F 
This includes GOCin-C"s Commendation in the year 2013, Commendation 
of Chief of Army Staff in the year 2014 and Vishisht Scva Medal in the 
2015. He has earned promotions from time to time, whenever became 
due and has arisen to the rank of Maj. Gen. He is due for superairnuation 
in this rank on 31" May, 2018. 
4. The respondent was consi~cred for promotion to the rank of 
Lt. Gen. and equivalent by SPB held on 20fu January, 2016. However, 
vide DGAFMS letter dated l" March, 2016, the respondent was informed 
that he was not empanelled for promotion. The respondent submitted his 
statutory complaint dated 3Q•h June, 20 l 6 against his non-empanelment 
G 
H
66 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPRE'.'v1E COURT REPO' 
~ 
(2017] I I S.C.R. 
challenging Lcnain assessments in his relevant annual cunfidLntial reports. 
Atler ,;cwn month,, th~ 1ppellanr grunted p<1rtial 'edrcssal to the 
respondent v1dc t11c1r letter aatcd 30" January. 2017. by way ol expunging 
the entire assessment of the TO in the respondent's ACR of 2014 on 
grounds ofi•1rnnsistcney. and directed that the respondent be considered 
for promotion by aq appropriate Promotion Board. Consequent tn the 
rcdrcssal grantc<t lo the respondent. his overall ACR profile fur 
considi:rat1on . .:tort thL' SPli 1mprov~tl and consequently his 1ncrit 
logically came above tha1 of the last officer cmpancllc<t in the SP13 hdd 
on 20"' January. 20! 6. Since, the rcdrcssal was granted. as per th,· policy 
of the appcllams, lhc respondent had to be put through a frcsh1Rcvicw 
SPR. 
5. It is pertinent to note at this stage that as per the Promotion 
Policy dated J 4'" January. 2004 as amended by the Government of India 
letter dated 17'" May, 2006, the selection criteria was based on following 
pammcters: 
"(a)Avcragc marks of ACR : 90 marks extrapolated out of 90 
(b)Total Marks for various 
: 02 marks 
Qualificatiq,ns like MD, OM, 
M.Ch. etc. 
(c)Marh for Military Awards of: OJ marks 
Decoratio11s 
(d)Marh awarded by the members : 02 marks 
of the Board 
Total Marks 
: 95 marks" 
6. The composition of the Promotion Board (Medical) is as per 
the Ministry ofDefonec letter No.
301/DGAFMS/DG-IX/87-S/D (Med.) 
dated 8'" February, 1988 and for the SPB for promotion to the rank of 
Lt. Gen. (&equiv) the board comprises: 
Chairman: 
Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee 
Members: 
The other two Chiefs of Staff 
Member Secretary : DGAFMS 
7. As noted above, as per the Promotion Policy. the Board 
Members are empowered to assess and award the marks. Award of
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY 
67 
GANGULY. VSM [A. K. S!KRI, .I.] 
these marks. not exceeding rwo (2). is based on the overall profile of the 
A 
officer. exceptional achievements. appointments held, medical category, 
disi:iplinary background. field area -difficult area posting. Average of 
the marks awarded by all the Board Members present, out of two (2), is 
used to calculate the overall marks. 
8. The procedure for selection and promotion which is 
communicated vide Circular dated 14"' January. 2004 issued by the 
Ministry of Defence (MoD), Government oflndia and as amended vidc 
letter dated l 7'" May, 2006 enumerates basis for awarding two marks 
keeping the following criteria in mind. 
"Weightage to the Members of the Board: Board Members will 
have a weightage of two (2) mark for selection of the otlicers. 
The Board Members may award marks not exceeding two (2) 
based on the overall profile of the officers, exceptional 
achievements, appointments held, medical category, disciplinary 
background, field Arca-Difficult Arca posting. Average of the 
marks awarded by all the board members present, out of the two 
(2), will be used to calculate the overall marks." 
Thus, it can be discerned that while 93 marks (ACR average 90, 
qualification marks-02, honour and awards - 0 I) can be quantified on 
the basis of relevant records, and need only arithmetical calculations, 
marks to be assigned by the Board Members out of two(2), depend on 
the subjective
assessment of the Board Members, albeit, after objectively 
evaluating the overall profile on the parameters laid down in the Promotion 
Policy. 
9. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that insofar as award of93 
marks, out of95 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 arc supposed to keep in mind the overall profile of the concerned 
olliccr, exceptional achievements, appointments held, medical category, 
disciplinary background, field area---<lifficult area posting. 
IO. Jnsofar 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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
68 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l l S.C.R. 
20'" 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 of9U 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 mcrcase 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 w<irc still below the cut-off marks because of which he 
was not empanell~d for promotion by the Review Board as well. The 
entire controversy be.fore the AFT, thus, pertained to the award of marks 
by the Board Members in the Review SPB. 
11. The case pleaded by the respondent before the AFT was that 
one Mr. Sanjccv Chopra, VSM, who was junior to the respondent was 
empanelled by the SPB on the basis of proceedings held on 20'" January, 
2016. Total marks obtained by him out of93 marks (i.e. without Board 
marks) were more than the respondent at that time. However, with 
increase of ACR marks of the respondent after his redress. total marks 
of the respondent (jut of93 marks became more than that ofMr. Sanjeev 
Chopra. But the rqspondent was still denied promotion by the Review 
SPB by awarding marginally less marks than Sanjccv Chopra by the 
Board. It was argued that since total without board marks of the
respondent were more than that of Mr. Sanjeev Chopra, there was no 
reason for the Board to give him lcsscrweightagc while awarding marks 
out of the 2 marks by the Board. 
12. This contention is accepted by the AFT in the following manner: 
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and seen the 
records. The man point of dispute is the award of Board Marks 
to the applicant during the Review Special Promotion Board held 
on 2 l.03.2017. It is a matter ofrecord that the redressal given to 
the applicant by the respondent in his Annual Confidential Report 
for the year 2014 has enhanced his quantified marks from 90.65 
to 91.25 and with these revised quantified marks, the applicant 
jumps above the last empanelled officer of his batch, i.e., Major 
Gen Sanjeev Chopra whose quantified marks arc 9 l.15. We find 
that Maj. G¢n Sanjeev Chopra with lower quantified marks in 
comparison to the applicant has been given 1.70 out of two marks 
by the Board. We have also been the trend of awarding the
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY 
69 
GANGULY. VSM [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
Board Marks to all officers considered in this Board which is 
A 
commensurate with the quantified marks of the candidates. 
Therefore, the same cannot be denied to the applicant unless it is 
justified by the Board Members, which has not been done in the 
Board Proceedings." 
13. In the process, the AFT has also observed that wrong facts 
were projected to the Board Members inasmuch as in the noting of the 
Board proceedings it is, inter alia, mentioned that ACR merit of the 
respondent in Chance one changed from 16'" position to 15'" position 
among 18 officers considered for only six vacancies. Noting No. 3 of 
the Notings in the Board proceedings, giving this information, reads as 
under: 
"3. His CR merit in chance one changed from 16'" position to 15'' 
position among 18 otlicers considered for only six vacancies." 
B 
c 
14. TheAFTfmmd that it was factually wrong as the respondent's 
revised profile after getting redressal had rcsulled in elevating his position 
D 
to 7'' place instead of 15m. According to the AFT, had there been correct 
facts before the Board Members, they may have given higher marks to 
the respondent. The AFT has even castigated the otlicers who, according 
to the AFT, were guilty of furnishing wrong information which caused 
serious injustice to the respondent and subverted the system. 
E 
15. The AFT mentioned that since Mr. Sanjccv Chopra was given 
I. 70 marks
out of the two marks, by the Board, there was no reason to 
give 1.50 marks to the respondent. Having regard to the fact that in the 
original SPB meeting, award of these marks commensurate with the 
quantified marks of the candidate, the respondent is also entitled to 1.70 
marks and in this way he would attain above the cut-off marks and more 
F 
marks than given to Mr. Sanjeev Chopra, who has been promoted as Lt. 
Gen. 
16. Challenging the aforesaid approach of the AFT, Mr. Maninder 
Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant 
submitted that AFT has committed a grave error in undermining the 
G 
discretion that is gi vcn to the Members of the Board for award of board 
marks. It is pointed out that these marks arc not to be given on the basis 
of ACRs. On the contrary, it is on the basis of overall profile of the 
·concerned officer which included exceptional achievements, 
H
70 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) I I S.C.R. 
appointments held, medical category, disciplinary background. field area-
difficult area posting etc. In this very hue. it is also contended that it 
was not permissible for the AFT to determine as to how many marks 
arc to be given to the respondent and by doing so the AFT has usurped 
the function of the Members of the Board. It is abo submitted that 
Members of the Board are Chiets of Air force, Army and Navy. It can 
reasonably ~c infcn-cd that they would have gone through overall profile 
of the respQndcnt and still decided to maintain the same marks in the 
Review SPB which were given to the respondent in the original SPB 
held in January, 2016. On this basis, the learned ASG also took strong 
exception to the rcl!larks of the AFT that the three Service Chiefs arc 
hardly expected tu examine the records in minute details. 
17. There is no dispute insofar as legal propositions advanced by 
the learned ASG are concerned. Undoubtedly, the Members of the 
Board arc empowered to award marks out of the two marks which arc 
reserved for them. For this purpose, it is not the ACR alone but the 
entire profile of an ot1icer which is lo 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 arc 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 offa:cr and arc not supposed tu restrict it to the ACR 
alone. It also needs no elaboration that Board Members arc 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 
intcrfcrcnuc while undcrtakingjudicial 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 16'" January, 2015 
rendered in OA No. 120 of 2014 entitled Major General S.K. 
C/wkravorty v. Union <!f 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
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY 
71 
GANGULY. VSM [A. K. SJKRI, J.] 
in respect of the Armed Medical Corps wherein the assessment is based 
A 
on quantified check marks. This basis of distinguishing the judgment in 
SK. 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 SK. 
Chakravorty is based on the judgments of this Court in Air Vice Marshal 
B 
~:L. C/111bbra, VSM (Reul) v. Union of India & Am:'. Major General 
J.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India & Ors.'· Dafpat Abasaheb Sol1111ke 
& Ors. v. Dr. B.S • .!11"/111j1111 & Ors. 3, and S11rinder S/111klt1 v. Union 
of India & Ors. 4 
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 20'h 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 become.~ 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 20'h 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 of2 marks whereas the respondent was awarded 
1.50 marks. Lesser marks given to the respondent were because of the 
reason that marks aw:irded to him out of93 were lesser than Mr. Sanjccv 
Chopra. Result of the redressal was that the marks of the respondent 
became higher than Mr. Sanjecv Chopra which necessitated Review 
·' (1993) Supp (4) sec 441 
'0 995) 3 sec 383. 
'1199011sec305 
• 12008) 2 sec 649 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
72 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] II S. C.R. 
SPB. This Review SPB meeting has to be on the same standards which 
were adopted in otiginal 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. Ill the SPB held on 20'h January, 2016, had the revised 
marks of the respondent available, which were more than the quantified 
marks ofSanjeev Chopra, the respondent would have ce1tainly got I. 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 oflooking into the "overall profile" 
in the SPB held on 20'" January, 2016 and instead assigning the marks to 
all the officers m1t of2 marks, on the basis of quantified marks of the 
candidates whicll 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 s;1111e criteria. Only that would show fairness in 
approach, which would also be in conformity with the principles of equality 
enshrined inA1ticlc 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 
E 
was factually incorrect. As pointed out above, as per Noting No.3, the 
respondent's CR merit in chance one changed from l 6'h position to ! S•h 
position among 18 officers considered for only 6 vacancies. This Noting 
gave the impression that even after the redress. the chances of promotion 
F 
G 
H 
of the respondent hardly improved. On the contrary, fact is that after 
the redress, position of the respondent had jumped from 16'" to 7'". 
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 Sanjcev 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. 
23. For these reasons, we arc not interfering with the directions 
given by the AFT. We make it clear that in any fnture selections, it 
would always be open to the Members of the Board to award the marks 
(out of2 marks assigned for this purpose) keeping in view the overall
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAJ. GEN. MANOMOY 
73 
GANGULY, VSM [A. K. SIKRI, J.) 
profile of the officers as per Promotion Policy dated 14" January, 2004 
A 
and as amended vide letter dated I 7" May, 2006. 
24. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with the direction to the 
appellant to take further steps, without loss of time, as stated by the AFT 
in the impugned judgment. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal dismissed. 
B