- (1.) S. R. Singh, J Present petition has its genesis in a dispute centering around the endorsements recorded by First Technical Officer in petitioner's A. C. Rs. for the year 1984-85 and in seeking redemption from the perceived wrongs, the petitioner has filed the present petition basically for the follow ing reliefs: " (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner expung ing the endorsements recorded by F. T. O. in his ACRs for the years 1985 and 1986 "annexure-2" dated 9 March 1994. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari summoning the records and quashing the impugned A. C. Rs. "
(2.) CONCEDEDLY, the relief (a) aforestated has not been couched in an intelligible manner inasmuch as the expression "an nexure-2 dated 9 March, 1994" has been pinned as a post- script to prayer (a) after the mark of full stop at the end of the figure '1986'. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the order dated 9th March, 1994 by which the statutory com plaint of the petitioner in re-AC. R. 1984-85 has been rejected, is also sought to be quashed besides the endorsement scripted by the FTO in SCR 1984-85 (incorrectly delineated in the prayer (a) as A. C. R. for the year 1985 and 1986 ). The reliefs claimed herein, are premised on the allegations inter alia that while posted in 504 ASC, Battalion under 4 -Infantory Division (Uttar Pradesh), the petitioner was evaluated worth seven marks by Lt. Col. S. M. Panu, the then officer Com manding, 504, ASC Battalion whereas he ought to have been acconded 8 marks in stead of 7 in his ACR 1983, that in the year 1984, the petitioner was transferred from Allahabad to Siachin Glacier Area, where he had to brave the brunt of vagaries of precipitous climatic conditions and was ex posed to the bullets of enemies for a period spanning over two years and three months as against the normal tenure of six months performing his duties satisfactorily, but he was eschewed from reckoning for promo tion, which, according to him, fell due in the year 1984 and when he looked back, he found that Brig. Harjeet Singh, the then DDST, 15 Corps, had graded the petitioner worth 5 marks in the ACR for the year ending 31st May, 1985 and this sudden swing to 5 marks' abysmal grading, was not only manifestly illegal but had on its forehead the taint of perversity, infringing on Para 33 of the Special Army Order (in short 'sao') 3/s/89; that this illegal grading by Brig. Harjeet Singh and seven marks grading while the petitioner was stationed at Allahabad in the year 1983, were the main obstacle operating in the way of the petitioner getting promotion to the next higher Rank and that his statutory com plaint in re-ACR 1984-85 has been illegally rejected without elaborating any reason for the same. Counter-affidavit filed by Capt. M. Ravi Kumar, unfolds that promotion upto the Rank of Major are time scale and con tingent upon the length of service, passing applicable promotional examinations and absence of any disciplinary case etc. and that selection for higher ranks does not depend upon single A. C. R. but is made up on con sideration of the over-all profile of an of ficer and inter se batch-merit keeping in view the number of vacancies. Promotion policy laid down by the Government (as contained in Annexure C. A. 1 to the counter-af fidavit), indicates that promotion in the Army to the Rank of Lt. Colonel and above is predicated upon selection and all officers of a particular batch are screened by a duly constituted Selection Board and assessed on their 'over-all profile' and batch merit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that in his A. C. R. 1983-84, the petitioner was over-all graded with 7 points (above average) by his I. O. Lt. Col. M. S. Panu, but that being the closed period of reporting, the adverse as sessment was not exhibited to him. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner earned two A. C. Rs. while serving in High Altitude; first, for the period between Oct. 1984 to May, 1985 and the second one, for the period between June, 1985 to May, 1986, but these assessments were not divulged to the petitioner as per policy then in vogue. The first report, it is stated, was 'high average' and the second one, 'above average. The assessment of 'high average' by Brig. Harjeet Singh is said to be "in tune with the established past profile of the petitioner".
(3.) ACCORDING to rating scale, 'high average' is recorded as worth 6 and 5 points, while 'above average' carries 8 and 7 points and 'out-standing' over-all performance is categorised worth 9 points. The assessment for promotion, according to the policy indi cated in Annexure CA 1, in respect of each officer is made by the members of the Selec tion Board on the basis of (a) war reports, (b) All relevant Confidential Reports earned by the officer; (c) Professional Course done alongwith gradings obtained therein; (d) Honour and Awards; (e) Dis ciplinary Awards, if any; (f) Special Achievements and weaknesses; (g) Service in High Altitude; Field/op. Areas; and (h) Employability and potential including con sistent recommendations for promotion to next higher ranks. It further reveals that an officer is given three considerations for each Selection Grade promotion to the next higher rank as (a) Fresh consideration; (b) 1st Review and (c) Final Review and if the officer is not found fit for promotion even after the final review, he is treated as finally superseded and his case is not considered any further except as a special review case. Army Headquarters Military Secretary's Branch letter dated 6-5-87 (Annexure C. A. II) contains detailed guidelines of assess ment regulating selection for promotion of the officers to the Rank of Lt. Col. and above. Salient features of guidelines are as follows: " (a) selection is to be based on the over -all 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 over-all performance and they are given preference over late starters. (c) the Officers should have been consis tently recommended for promotion to the next rank. Credit is given to those officers who have 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 Apptts. However, qualification of psc, ptsc or HO is neither a sub stitute for mediocre performance in command nor a licence for promotion. (e) officer should have the potential for being employed or being rotated in staff, Instruc tional or ERE appointments. (f) character qualities, Disciplinary back ground and decorations form an important input of the over-all profile of the officer and due con sideration should be given while assessing border line cases. (g) while assessing officers with disciplinary background the 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 unofficer-like behaviour which reflects on the moral fibre of an officer will not be recommended for promotion. (j) performance during war forms an impor tant fact of the over- all record of the officer. " We have heard Col. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and perused the writ petition as well as counter-affidavit. There was no appearance on be half of the respondents.;