YOGESHWAR DAYAL - (1.) THIS appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th April, 1991 on behalf of the Union of India and the Chief of the Army Staff against Major General Dayanand Khurana.
(2.) BY the irnpugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court'directed the issue of writ of mandamus modifying an order dated 26/10/1990 and thereby directing the appellants herein to treat Major General D. N. Khurana, who was approved for promotion to the acting, rank of Lt. General for' Staff Only' Stream, senior to all the other Major Generals who were promoted to the acting rank of Lt. General in the 'Command and StaffStream, and also issued further writ of mandamus directing the appellants to expeditiously promote the respondent herein, ahead of the 1957 batch, to a staff post which has occurred between 26/10/1990 and 31/05/1991 keeping in view the existing policy of The Government and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The brief facts which give rise to the filing of the writ petition in the High Court and the appeal before us may be noticed. The respondent was commissioned in the army in the year 1954, therefore, his original seniority reckons from the year, 1954. As per the policy and procedure adopted in this connection every officer is given three chances for consideration for promotion. If an officer is not approved for promotion during the first consideration he loses one year of seniority and slides into the batch of the next year. In the eventuality of his not being approved for promotion even in the second consideration, he loses one more year of seniority and slides further into the next batch. Thereafter, the officer is considered for the last time for promotion in the third chance and if he is not approved even in the third chance, he is not given any further consideration and is finally regarded as a superseded officer. In pursuance of this policy, the respondent herein while he was acting as a Brigadier was first considered for promotion to the rank of Major General in the year 1983 but was not approved, and, therefore, he became part of 1955 batch instead of 1954 batch. Thereafter he was superseded again and ultimately got selected as a Major General in the 1956 batch. As per the existing policy at that time his seniority in the rank Major General was re-fixed along with the of officers of 1956 batch as per the following sequence of selection:-1956 Batch: a) Final review case of 1954 batch. b) First review case of 1955 batch. c) Fresh case of 1956 batch.
(3.) THE respondent while working as Major General was considered for promotion to the rank of Lt. General in July, 1989 but was rejected by the Government. He thus once again lost seniority of 1956 batch. He was then considered as a first review case in July, 1990 along with 1957 batch and was approved for selection for'Staff Only'Stream in the following sequence of consideration:- a) Final review case of 1955 batch. b) First review case of 1956 batch. c) Fresh case of 1957 hatch.Since the respondent was approved only for 'Staff only' Stream he was placed below all other Major Generals who were approved for selection in the Stream of 'Command and Staff'. THE respondent was aggrieved by his placement below the officers who were approved for 'Command and Staff' Stream, though he had been approved only for 'Staff Only'Stream. On' 31/05/1986 the Government of India approved, in principle, the 'Two Stream' concept of career management of Army Officers of the ranks of Major General and Lt. General subject to the following stipulations:- (a) The modalities for implementation of Two Stream'concept will be worked out by the Army Headquarters and submitted to Government for information. This will include identification of appointments to be manned by officers belonging to the 'Staff Only' Stream. (b) The criteria and the QRs formulated by the Army HQrs and submitted to Government vide Army HQrs Note No. PC/ 01 102/ MS 9B dated 7/02/1986 will be applied for screening officers for promotion to the two streams. It will be ensured that the QRs prescribed for promotion to the 'Command and Staff'stream are stricter than those prescribed for the 'Staff Only' stream. (c) A comprehensive review of the working of the concept will be done in 1987 and such amendments, as may be necessary, will be put up to Government for approval. ;