DIPAK MISRA, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted in both the special leave petitions.
(2.) THE respondent knocked at the doors of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chandigarh (for short, 'the tribunal ') in OA No. 1334 of 2012 for setting aside the order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India dismissing the statutory complaint preferred by him and further for quashing para 9 of the Promotion Policy dated 04.11.2011 which postulates that the gallantry award will be given weightage for two selection boards after the award. Additionally, the petitioner also prayed for quashing of the promotion policy dated 04.11.2011 in entirety as arbitrary and discriminatory and further to command the respondents therein to grant weightage for gallantry award, namely, Sena Medal (Gallantry) and Vir Chakra and consider his case afresh for promotion to the post of Brigadier. Be it stated, certain other reliefs were sought but they are not necessary to be referred to for adjudication of the present appeals.
(3.) THE facts which are essential to be stated are that the respondent was commissioned in the Indian Army on 18.06.1983 and on 26.01.1986, he was conferred the award, Sena Medal (Gallantry) by the President of India, regard being had to his exceptional devotion to duty, and courage. He was awarded Vir Chakra on 26.01.1991 for his bravery and conduct during the Indian Peace Keeping Force operation in Sri Lanka. Thereafter, the question of promotion of the respondent to the post of Lt. Colonel came for consideration in May 1999 and he was promoted. While he was holding the post of Lt. Colonel, his case was considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel by the Selection Board in July/August, 2001 and he was cleared for the said rank on 21.08.2002. At this stage, it is apt to note that a policy had been framed by the Army Headquarters with approval of the Union of India in the year 1987. It pertains to selection system. Clause 10 deals with guidelines of assessment. For the purpose of completeness, the said clause is reproduced below: ''Guidelines of Assessment 10. These directives are approved by the COAS for each rank and are comprehensive by themselves. The salient features of the guidelines are as follows (a) Selection is to be based on the overall profile of the officer with special stress on the performance in criteria command appointment. (b) Due consideration is given to officer who show consistency in overall performance and they are given preference over late starters. (c) The officer should have been consistently recommended for to the next rank. Credit is given to those officers who gave earned positive recommendations for promotion in their very first report in command. (d) The officer should have done psc/ptsc/post graduate courses and/or worked well in Staff/ ERE/ Instructional Appt. However, qualification of psc,ptsc or HC is neither as substitute for mediocre performance in command nor a license for promotion. (e) Officers should have the potential for being employed or being rotated in Staff, instructional or ERE appointments. (f) Character Qualities Disciplinary background and decorations form an important input of the overall profile of the officer and due consideration should he given while assessing borderline cases. (g) While assessing officers with disciplinary background gravity and nature of the offence and the service level at which the offence was committed should be taken into consideration. (h) Cases involving moral turpitude, gross negligence, acts of cowardice, or un -officer like behaviour which reflects on the moral fibre of an officer will not be recommended for promotion. (j) Performance during war forms an important fact of the overall record of the officer. (k) Cautionary Notes by the CO AS (i) Element of magnanimity on the part of the reporting officers leading, to sudden elevation in figurative rating especially in the case of officers who have been superseded earlier or on the eve of the selection or on the eve the reporting officer 's retirement. (ii) Moderation by RO, -SRO, NSRO particularly in cases where officers have been over or under -rated. (iii) Disparity in recommendations for promotion viz - a -viz the box grading, pen picture and recommendations for employments. (iv) Comparative merit of officers in Staff/ ERE viz - a - viz an officer in command in the same rank. (v) Reports from NCC - and ERE are given less weightage as compared to the reports earned from command and graded staff. (l) Assessment of the officer is based on the comparative merit of the overall profile of the: officers within his own batches. Needless to say, the gracing of, the board is be assessed from the material placed before the board, and not from personal knowledge, if any. (m) In case of doubt, benefit must go to the ''Service ''. (n) Grading to be awarded by the selection Board are placed at Annexure II. '' [Emphasis supplied] ;