Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court came across an appeal challenging the appointment of Lt. Gen Balbir Singh as Army Commander of Eastern Commander. Previously, the bench of the apex court comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta upheld the appointment of Lt. General Charcha as the Army Commander of Northern Command and dismissed the appeal challenging the former’s appointment.
In the above-referred case, Lt. Gen Ravi Dastanemoved an appeal against the said appointment. Senior Counsel RK Anand and Advocate Uday Gupta appeared for the appellant. Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan appeared for the Union of India.
The counsel for the appellant contended that the notified policy decision mandate for the appointment to be made by a selection process and not based on seniority. Appointment based on seniority draws attention to focus on adherence to a selection process. Reliance on seniority bypassed the requirement of comparative study, and there was a Disciplinary and Vigilance Ban on Suhag during the process of selection, which necessitated the appointment of the appellant.
The Chief of Army Staff (COAS) initiated the process of appointment for filling up the vacancies and prepared a list of senior officers, wherein the top three were Suhag, Chachra, and Dastane. The Appointing Authority appointed Suhag and Chachra in compliance with the due process of law.The appellant had previously challenged the decision of the appointing authority before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which rejected his original application on account of the appointment having been made on merits and comparative study. The Tribunal said the decision of the appointing authority was in no prejudice to the interests of the appellant.
After the decision of the AFT, Suhag was appointed as the COAS, and he retired from office on December 31, 2016. Charcha superannuated in May 2014 and the appellant retired from services in September 2014.
Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan informed the court the appeal was ineffective considering the retirement of Charcha and Dastane. He submitted that the DV ban was lifted prior to the appointment of Suhag. Even if the ban was not lifted, it was selection post, and therefore, the appellant would not have been automatically eligible for the post base on seniority exclusively. The comparative study was conducted after a list of seven names was submitted.
The Hon’ble Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the appointment by agreeing to the fact that it was a selection post. The Court held that the post of Army Commander was of high significance, which shapes the organisational structure of the Army. Indeed, seniority was a relevant consideration as it sheds light on a high level of experience in handling situations and planning. Since the post was a selection post, which carries high responsibilities impacting the defence needs of the Armed forces and the nation as a whole, it was necessary to consider all the relevant factors.
The court said that it could not use judicial review to restrict the consideration of the appointing authority. Observing the findings of the AFT on the appointment based on the selection process, criteria fulfilment and seniority, the court said that the due process was followed and the appointment was not made exclusively based on seniority. The court dismissed the appeal finding no merit therein, especially because there was no contravention with the norms governing the said appointment in the instant case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824