Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) AT the request of both the learned Counsel both the petitions were heard together and facts of the case in S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3076/1998 will be sufficient to refer in judgment. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was commissioned as Medical Officer in Army Medical Corps (AMC) on 05.5.1971. The petitioner was serving to Airforce since then as Medical Officer. The petitioner was allotted permanent service Number as MR 02905 F by Army Medical Corps which is referred as AMC. The promotion of Medical Officer though mentioned in the writ petition is up to the rank of Major (Equivalent to Wing Commander in Air Force and Commander in Navy) are time scale promotion but the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this promotion is up to the rank of Lt. Colonel in Army, Wing Commandar in Air Force and Commander in Navy and not as mentioned above. It is also submitted that promotion of medical officers is by common promotion board irrespective of service of Medical Officer in any of three wings i.e. Army, Navy or Airforce and all the Medical Officers are considered for promotion together irrespective of their service in any wing, by Common Board. Promotion is granted on the basis of confidential reports of the officers. Since 1982 there was a procedure prevailing in the Army by which the officers are shown their ACRs and it continued for a few years but it was found that some reporting officers have perceived notion that if a statutory complaint is initiated against a report rendered by them it is not taken well by Senior Officers in chain of reporting and, therefore, it was ordered that assessment of I.O./F.T.O. will not be communicated to the officers reported upon. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Annexure/4 dated 20.02.1992 in support of above plea. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner had the officers who were serving in the Army and were eligible for promotion in next higher post alongwith petitioner and officers in the Airforce, been shown their ACRs at relevant time they could have improved their ACRs. It is also submitted that reporting officer in Army always gave better report in ACR's of their juniors to avoid any complaint against them to higher authorities by his annoyed junior officer who comes to know his poor assessment by reporting officer. This difficulty was taken note of and therefore, it was decided vide order dated 20.02.1992 Annexure/4 not to show ACRs to the Army Officers. It is also submitted that even after officially stopping procedure of showing the ACRs to the officers, the I.O.s and F.T.Os continued with the procedure of showing the ACRs to the officers and even they obtained the signatures of the officers for which learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Annexure/5. The thrust of the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and other officers who are similarly situated and eligible for promotion to the next higher post were treated differently and the advantage of looking into the ACRs which was available to the officers serving in the Army was not available to the petitioner and the officers serving in the Airforce which resulted into two fold effect one is that the officers of the Army were benefited and the officers of the Airforce were put to the disadvantageous position when their case for promotion was considered.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also referred the minutes of the Commanders' Conference Annexure/10 wherein it was observed that new policy of 1996 has resulted in certain adverse effect on the Airforce Medical Officers and to demonstrate that, facts were recorded and it was observed that out of total 11 Gp Captains exposed to Promotion Board on 12.3.1996 for promotion, only one officer had made the grade whereas out of 51 colonels from the Army exposed to the Selection Board 17 have been selected and out of three naval officers one was successful. It was also observed that since numerical grading is only criteria for promotion. It is suggested that any medical or dental officer who is considered fit for promotion to the next rank would not be assessed lower than 8 marks. These all documents placed on record by the petitioner are to substantiate the ground of discrimination faced by the doctors serving in the Airforce against the doctors serving in the Army.;