Holding

The Special Selection Board’s decision not to promote the respondent was valid because he did not meet the external staff appointment requirement of clause (b) of the approved Qualitative Requirements, which remained operative.

Summary

Maj. Gen. W.S. Chona, a non‑General Cadre officer of the Corps of Engineers, sought promotion to Lt. General in the Army’s "Staff Only" stream under the 1986 two‑stream concept. The Special Selection Board found him unfit because he had not satisfied clause (b) of the Qualitative Requirements, which demands a staff appointment outside his corps, and the Central Government approved this decision. The Delhi High Court set aside the Board’s decision, directing a fresh board and treating his deputation to C‑DOT as a qualifying staff posting. The Supreme Court held that the 1986 Qualitative Requirements were duly approved by the Government, were not superseded by the 1992 policy letter, and that the respondent’s appointments were corps appointments, not the external staff postings required by clause (b). Consequently, the Board’s non‑selection was proper, the High Court’s interference was erroneous, and the respondent retired as Major General. The appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

The QRs for promotion of Non‑General Cadre officers to Lt. General in the Staff Only stream were approved by the Central Government.
Whether the 5 February 1992 policy letter superseded the 1986 QRs.
Whether the respondent satisfied clause (b) of the QRs requiring a staff appointment outside his corps.
Whether the Special Selection Board’s recommendation of non‑selection was infirm.
Whether the Delhi High Court was justified in quashing the Board’s decision and ordering a fresh board.

Subjects

military promotionstaff only streamqualitative requirementsnon‑general cadrespecial selection boardjudicial reviewarmy retirement

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA A
v.
W.S. CHONA

NOVEMBER 25, 1997

[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) B

Service Law: Eligibility ofpromotion from Major General to Lieutenant
General in ''staff only'' stream-Army Headquarters' Circular dated 9. 9. 1986
-Para 4, Clauses (a) and (b)-Qualitative Requirements for promotion of C
Non-general Cadre officers in "staff only" stream-Non-selection of the
respondent for promotion from Major General to Lieutenant General in ''Staff
only" stream-Held, Justified-The appointments held by him in different
capacities both as Brigadier and Major General, including that with C-Dot
. were ''corps appointments' '-Not graded as ''staff appointments'' outside the
corps as contemplated in clause 'b' of the Qualitative Requirements-Therefore D
do not fulfil the qualitative requirements envisaged in clause 'b '-Adverse
remarks made against the functionaries at the higher level both at the Army
Headquarters as well as Ministry of Defence, in the High Court judgment-
uncalled for, therefore set aside.

The respondent was a commissioned officer of the Army in the Corps E
of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers falls under the Non-General Cadre.
The respondent claimed promotion from Major General to Lieute.nant General
in the "Staff Only" stream under the "Two Stream Concept" formulated by
the Army Headquarters in circul.ar dated 9.9.86. The scheme envisaged that
the officers on promotion to the rank of Major General and Lieutenant
General will be bifurcated into the "Command and Starr• Stream and the F
"Staff Only" stream. Non-General Cadre officers could also be considered
for the "Staff Only" stream in the rank of Lieutenant General.

The Qualitative Requirements for induction of Non-General Cadre
officers into "Staff only" stream were as follows:
G
(a) The performance of the officer in the corps appointments should be
of a high order and the officer should be considered fit for promotion to the
higher-rank in his own Arm or Service; (b) The officer's performance on
"Staff Appointments" be of a high order and he should be considered fit in
all respects to hold various staff, instructional and extra-regimental (ERE) H
417
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A appointments in the higher rank; (c) Based on his qualification, performance
on course and experience, the officer should be eminently suitable to hold
senior appointments on "staff only on first promotion".

The respondent was not recommended for promotion to the rank of
Lieutenant General by the Special Selection Board finding him unfit as per
B the Qualitative Requirements prescribed for promotion to the rank of
Lieutenant General in "Staff Stream". The Central Government approved.
the same and the respondent was intimated accordingly by a letter dated
November 1, 1994. The respondent retired from Army in the rank of Major
General with effect from October 31, 1994 on the basis of letter dated
C January 4, 1994.

The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court
allowed the writ petition and quashed the letter dated November 1, 1994 as
well as the letter dated January 4, 1994 and also directed the appellants to
constitute a Special Selection Board to reconsider the case of the respondent.
D Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: l. There is no infirmity in the recommendation of the Special
Selection Board treating the respondent unfit for promotion to the rank of
E Lieutenant General in the "Staff Only" stream which had been approved by
the Central Government. Clause (b) of the Qualitative Requirements of the
Army Headquarters Circular dated 9.9.86 for induction of Non-General
Cadre officers into "Staff Only" stream envisages that the Staff Appointment
has to be a staff appointment outside the corps and performance of the officer.
on such appointment should be of higher order so that he can be considered
F fit in all respects to hold various staff, instructional and extra-regimental
appointments in the higher rank. A corps staff appointment only enables an
officer to acquire experience of the work relating to his Arm or Service and
does not enable him to acquire experience in other fields which is necessary
for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General on the "Staff Only" stream.
G The performance of the officer on a corps staff appointment is already
covered by clause (a) of the Qualitative Requirements, 1986, which requires
that the performance of the officer in corps appointment should be of a high
order. Since corps appointments are already covered by clause (a), the staff
appointment in clause (b) of the Qualitative Requirements only contemplates
a staff appointment outside the corps. Since the appointments held by the
H respondent both as Brigadier and Major General including that with the C-
..
U.0.1. v. W.S. CHON A [S.C. AGRA WAL.J.] 419
DOT, were corps appointments and not graded as staff appointments, it A
cannot be said that he fulfilled the qualitative requirements contemplated in
clause (b) thereof Therefore the Special Selection Board was right in not
recommending the respondent for promotion. As such the High Court erred
in interfering with the decision of the Central Government and quashing the
order dated November I, 1994.1431-F-H; 432-A-B)
B
Union of India v. Maj. General, Dayanand Khurana, 11991] 3 SCR 350
and Lt. Gen. R.K. Anand v. Union ofIndia, 119911 Suppl. 3 SCR 498, relied
on.

2. Once it is held that there is no infirmity in the non-selection of the
respondent for promotion from the rank of Major General to the rank of C
Lieutenant General by the Special Selection Board, the respondent had to
retire as Major General after attaining the age of 56 years on October 31,
1994 and the direction contained in the letter dated January 4, 1994 regarding
his date of superannuation from the Army has been rightly issued and the
High Court was in error quashing the same. (432-CI D
3. In the impugned judgment of the High Court there are adverse
remarks against the functionaries at the higher level both at the Army
Headquarters as well as Ministry of Defence, the said remarks were qncalled
for and are, therefore, set aside. 1432-D]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8273of1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10,11.95 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No. 4915of1995.

R.K. Anand. Lokesh Sawhney and A.K. Srivastava for the Appellants. F
Mukul Rohtagi and Manoj Prasad for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.C. AG RA WAL, J. Special leave granted.
G
This appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated
November 10, 1995 in Civil Appeal No. 4915 of 1995 relates to promotion from
the rank of Major General to the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army.

The personnel in the Army fall in two broad categories, namely, General
Cadre Consisting of Infantry, Mechanised lnfantary and Armoured corps, H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A and Non-General Cadre consisting of Artillery, Engineers, Signals, Army
Ordinance Corps, Army Service Corps and Electrical Mechanical Corps. The
appointment within the corps or the service is known as 'Corps Appointment'
which may be on the command side or staff side within the corps or the
service. Apart from Corps Appointments, appointments are also made outside
B the corps/service on the staff side which are called 'Staff Appointments'. Till
September 9, 1986 officers in the Non-General Cadre could be promoted to the
rank of Lt Gen. in their respective Corps/Service Appointments only. By
circular dated September 9, 1986 issued by the Military Secretary at the Army
Headquarters it was decided to adopt the 'Two stream Concept' for officers
of the rank of Brigadier and above. The said concept envisages that the
C officers on promotion to the rank of Maj. Gen. and Lt. Gen. will be bifurcated
into the 'Command and Staff stream and the 'Staff Only' stream. Non-General
Cadre officers could also be considered for the 'Staff Only' stream i~ the rank
of Lt. Gen. The following provision was made in this regard for Non-General
Cadre officers in the said circular :-

D "Non-General Cadre Officers

6. High calibre officers in the rank of Brig. from other Arms and
Services who are considered fit for promotion to the next higher
rank within their own Corps, will be screened for holding
unspecified Staff/ ERE appointments on first promotion. If selected
E to hold unspecified appointments outside their Corps, such
officers may be promoted to the higher rank of Staff/ERE
appointments ou~side their Corps ahead of officers senior to
them in the same batch. These officers will be exercised in
criteria appoinments within their Corps subsequently prior to
selection for the next higher rank.
F
Methodology of Streaming

7. With the introduction of Stream Concept, the methodology of
screening officers for promotion will also undergo a change.
Based on the QRs prescribed from time to time, officers will first
G be screened to assess their suitability for promotion to the
higher ranks. Those considered fit will be subjected to another
screening for bifurcation into the 'Two Streams'. Officers with
higher command potential will be inducted into the 'Command
and Staff Stream while others to the 'Staff Only' Stream.
H 8. Non-General Cadre officers of high calibre will also be screened
U.0.1. v. W.S. CHONA [S.C. AGRAWAL. J.] 421
based on the prescribed criteria for induction into 'Staff Only' A
Stream in the rank of Lt. Gen. Screening of Non-General Cadre
in the Rank of Brig. will be as mentioned earl!er in Para 6 above."

The screening was to be done on the basis of qualitative requirements
(QRs) prescribed from time to time. The QRs for 'Staff Only' Stream prescribed
for other Arms and Services were as follows :- B
"4. In the 'Two Stream' Concept, it has been proposed by us that in
order to utilise the talent and expertise of Non-General Cadre officers,
they should also be considered for induction into the 'Staff Only'
Stream. The QRs for such induction will be as follows :-

(a) the perfonnance of the officer in Corps appointments should be
c
of a high order and the officer should be considered fit for
promotion to the higher rank in his own Ann or Service.

(b) The officer's perfonnance on staff appointments should be of a
high order ~d he should be considered fit in all respects to hold D
various staff, instructional and ERE appoinments in the higher
rank.
(c) Based on his qualifications, performance on courses and
experience, the officer should be eminently suitable to hold
senior appoinments on staff on first promotion." E
For the purpose of promotion from the rank of Maj. Gen. to the rank of
Lt. Gen. the following criteria had been laid down in 1984 :-

(1) The officer should have held a specific appoinment of Maj. Gen.
for a period of 18 months, and
F
(2) He should have earned two reports during the said period.

The respondent, Maj Gen. W.S. Chona, was commissioned in the Army
in the Corps of Engineers on December 13,1959. On February 6, 1986 the
respondent was promoted as Brig. His date of retirement as Brig. was October
31, 1992. On April 13, 1992 an advertisement was issued in th.e Hindustan G
Times inviting applications for the post of Chief Project Manager-Campus in
the Centre for Development of Telematrics (C-DOT). The respondent while
working as Brig. applied for the said post. His application was forwarded to
the Registrar, ~>DOT by letter dated May 12, 1992. On October 5, 1992 the
respondent was promoted in acting rank of Maj. Gen. for the Corps
Appointment and he was promoted on the substantive rank of Maj. Gen. on H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A October 28, 1992. As a result of the promotion his date of retirement from the
Army was postponed to October 31, 1994. Before his promotion on the
substantive rank of Maj. Gen. the respondent, on October 21, 1992, had
expressed his willingness to work in C-DOT as MAj. Gen. on deputation. On
December 28, 1992 the respondent joined C-DOT as Chief Project Manager -
B Campus on deputation for two years with effect from December 24, 1992 or
till his superannuation from the Anny, whichever is earlier subject to the tenns
and conditions contained in the letter of Government of India dated February
18, 1993. In the said letter the following provision was made regarding the
period of service with C-DOT :-

C ''Service. The entire period of deputation will count in full as effective
commissioned service for. purposes such as seniority, promotion,
increment of pay, pensionary awards and leave etc. in the Anny."

On January 4, 1994 the Special Selection Board met for making selection
for Staff Appointment for the post of Lt. Gen. The respondent was not
D considered for such selection by the Selection Board and his case was
deferred for the reason that he had not earned two ACRs after his promotion
as Maj. Gen. and he did not have to his credit the minimum service of 18
months in the rank of Maj. Gen. Another Special Selection Board met in April,
1994. Since there was no change in the position of the respondent in the
E sense that two ACRs had not been received, his case was deferred. The third
Special Selection Board met on July 18, 1994. The respondent was considered
for promotion to the rank of Lt. Gen. as a fresh case for staff appointment.
He was, however, not selected and the said recommendation of the Special
Selection Board was accepted by the Central Government. By letter dated
November I, 1994 the respondent was informed about his non-selection for
F staff appointment. The case of the appellant is that a Special Selection Board
for Corps Appointment for the Corps of Engineers met on October 21, 1994
•
and the respondent was considered as a fresh case for Corps Appointment
as Lt. Gen. but he was not selected for such Corps Appointment also. On the
basis of Jetter dated January 4, 1994, the respondent was retired from Anny
G in the rank of Maj. Gen. with effect from October 31, 1994. Feeling aggrieved
by his non-selection for Staff Appointment in the rank of Lt. Gen. by the
Special Selection Board which met on July 18, 1994, the respondent filed a
Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court which has given rise to this appeal.

The said Writ Petition was contested by the appellants and it was
H submitted that the Special Selection Board for promotion of officers in the
U.0.1. v. W.S. CHONA [S.C. AGRA WAL . .I.] 423
rank of Maj. Gen. to rank of Lt. Gen. consists of the Chief of the Army Staff A
as Chairman, the Vice Chief of the Anny Staff and Army Commanders of
Western Command, Southern Command, Central Command, Eastern Command,
Northern Command and Army Training Command as members with Military
Secretary as the Secretary to the Board. It was also submitted that the
Selection Board grades each officer either fit or unfit on the basis of the B
officer's individual overall profile as well as comparative merit of the whole
batch after taking into consideration the following materials :-

(a) War Reports

(b) All Annual Confidential Reports
c
(c) Professional course done alongwith gradings obtained therein

(d) Honours and Awards

(e) Disciplinary background and punishment

(f) Special Achievements and weaknesses D
(g) Employability and potential including positive recommendations
for promotion to next higher rank.

The grading by the Selection Board is then placed before the Chief of
the Army Staff who, as COAS, then gives his recommendation in this respect E
and thereafter the Board proceeding alongwith all the relevant records are
submitted to the Central Government which is the final approving authority.
It was submitted that the case of the respondent was considered for promotion
from the rank of Maj. Gen. in the 'Staff Stream' as per the above procedure
and that tbe name of the respondent for promotion to the rank of Lt. Gen.
came up for consideration before the Special Selection Board which met in F
January 1994, but the respondent had earned only one CR in the rank of Maj.
Gen. for the period from December 1992 to June 1993 against the mandatory
requirements of two CRs his case was deferred till the next Selection Board.
The next Selection Board met in April 1994 but till then the respondent had
earned only one CR and his name was again deferred. The respondent was G
considered for staff appointment by Special Selection Board which met in July
1994 by which time the second CR for the period from July 1993 to June 1994
was available. But the respondent was not recommended for promotion by the
Special Selection Board taking into account the QRs prescribed for promotion
to the rank of Lt. Gen. in 'Staff Stream' as well as comparative merit and that
the approval of the Central Government to the non-recommendation of the H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 5 S.CR.

A respondent for promotion was received on November I, 1994. The respondent
was accordingly informed of the said decision on the same date by letter
dated November I, 1994. The allegations about arbitrariness, discrimination
and capricious considerations contained in the Writ Petition filed by the
respondent were denied by the appellants. It was submitted that since the
.
B respondent was considered by the Special Selection Board and the Central
Government did not approve him for promotion to the rank of Lt. Gen. as per
laid down norms he has no right to claim promotion and to seek the issuance
of any writ from the Court. During the course of the hearing before the High
Court the relevant records from the Army Headquarters as well as the Ministry.
of Defence concerning the recommendations relating to the respondent and
C other officers were produced. On a perusal of the said records the High Court
has found that the respondent was not considered fit for promotion to the
rank of Lt. Gen. due to following reasons :-

(a) The petitioner does not meet the general Qualitative Require11,1ents
(hereinafter referred to as 'the QRs') introduced in the year 1986 for
D promotion to the rank of Lt. General; and

(b) The present assignment of the petitioner in C-DOT is not a staff
appointment and since the petitioner has not worked in the Army
appointment in the rank of Major General and his full period of service
after he was promoted to the rank of Major General has been in C~
E DOT he cannot be considered for promotion to a 'higher Army rank
(Lt. General)

The High Court has referred to the two Rs prescribed for selection into
the Staff Stream. While dealing with QR No. (I) the High Court has observed
that the performance of the respondent in the Corps appointment undisputedly
F had been of a very high order and that the said fact was clear from the records
produced from the Army Headquarters and from the Ministry of Defence and
even after his promotion the performance of the respondent in his capacity
as Major General, on deputation with C-DOT, had been outstanding (Excellent)
which fact stands duly acknowledged even by the Defence Secretary in his
G note dated September 22, 1994. As regards QR No. (2) the High Court has
referred to the stand taken by the Army Headquarters that the assignment of
the respondent with the C-.DOT was not a 'staff appointment' and has held
that the said stand was not correct for the reason that after his promotion as
Maj. Gen. the respondent was sent on deputation with C-DOT by the Army
authorities and when the respondent was sent to C-DOT on deputation no
H adverse career certificate was obtained from him and it was clearly stated in
U.0.1. v. W.S. CHONA [S.C. AGRA WAL J.] 425
his deputation order dated February 18, 1993 that the entire period of deputation A
would count in full as effective commissioned service for the purpose such
as seniority, promotion, increment of pay, pensionary awards and leave etc.
____ ,
in the Army. The High Court has also observed that QRs do not specifically
lay down that such staff appointment outside the Corps should be held within
the Army and that the concerned authorities di<l not have a very clear cut
definition of 'staff appointment'. While dealing with the QRs the High Court B
has held that none of the QRs relied upon by the appellants in the counter
affidavit had been approved by the Government which was the appointing
authority in the instant case. The High Court has also held that the QRs relied
upon by the appellants are at variance with the policy letter dated February
5, 1992 which shows that for consideration for promotion to the rank of Lt. C
General there are only two requirements, namely, that the officer should have
held th<)t appointment as Major General for a period of 18 months and that
the officer should have earned minimum two reports during the above period
of 18 months and in the said policy letter there is no mention of any other
condition for promotion from the rank of Maj. General to the rank of Lt.
General. The High Court, therefore, held that reason (a) given for the respondent D
being not considered for promotion to the rank of Lt. General could not be
sustained. The High Court has also gone into the question of comparative
merit of the respondent and other officers and has observed that a perusal
of the records reveals that by all standards the performance of the respondent
has been of such a high order which merits his promotion and that officers E
with much inferior record have been promoted to the rank of Lt. General. In
this context, the High Court has mentioned the name of Li. General Singhal
(DGBR) whose record was stated to be much inferior to that of the respondent
but he had been promoted as Lt. General. In view of the aforesaid findings
the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent and has
quashed the letter dated November 1, 1994 issued by the Military Secretary F
Branch, Army Headquarters as well as the letter dated January 4, 1994 insofar
as it relates to the retirement of the respondent from Army service with effect
from October 31, 1994. The High Court has directed the appellants to constitute
within six weeks from the date of the said order a Special Selection Board for
considering the case of the respondent for promotion to the rank of Lt. G
General in the Army and has further directed that the Board thus constituted,
while considering the case of the respondent shall apply the same criteria
which were applied by the Board held on July 18, 1994 except that it shall also
keep in mind the directions observations given by the High Court and while
doing so shall treat the service rendered by the respondent while on deputations
with C-DOT, at par with the service in the Army and if by applying the above H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A standards the respondent is found fit for promotion, the appellants shall
promote him to the rank of Lt. General in the Army from the date officer
•
immediately junior to him has been promoted to the said rank with all
consequential benefits and if, after considering the case of the respondent in
the manner stated above, it is found that the respondent is still considered
B to be 'unfit' the date of retirement of the respondent shall remain unchanged
and he shall be deemed to have retired from the service of the Army as Major
General with effect from October 31, 1994. Feeling aggrieved by the said
decision of the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal.

The first question which requires consideration is whether the QRs for
C promotion of Non-General Cadre officers from the rank of Maj. Gen. to the
rank of Lt. Gen. on the staff side had been approved by the Central
Government. Shri R.K. Anand, the learned senior counsel appearing ori behalf
of the appellants, has urged that the High Court was in error in holding that
the QRs had not been approved by the Central Government. In support of this
D submission the learned counsel has placed before us the relevant records
relating to the passing of order dated September 9, 1986. The learned counsel
has also invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Union ofIndia
& Anr. v. Maj. Gen. Dayanand Khurana, (1991] 3 SCR 350, and Lt. General
R.K. Anandv. Union ofIndia & Anr., [1991] 3 Supp. SCR 498. From a perusal
of the records relating to the passing of the order dated September 9, 1986
E we find that the QRs for the "Command and Staff Stream" and "Staff Only"
Stream were finalised in the note submitted to the Joint Secretary (G) by the
Military Secretary dated February 7, 1986 and the Joint Secretary (G) in his
note has specifically referred to the proposed QRs. In the said note the Joint
Secretary has said :-
F
"In the proposed QRs, the emphasis is on high order of perfonnance
in Corps appointment as also on Staff appointments outside the
Corps. Another essential requirement is that the officer should be fit
for promotion to higher rank in his own Arm/Service. It is also a
requirement that an officer's qualifications, performance on courses
G and experience should make him eminently suitable to hold senior
Staff appointments on first promotion.

These QRs will ensure that only the best officers of the non-
General Cadre enter into the 'Staff Only' stream of Maj. General and
H Lt. General."
U.0.1. v. W.S. CHON A [S.C. AGRA WAL. .I.] 427
Thereafter the matter was placed before the Defence Secretary and it A
was finally approved by the Prime Minister. In Maj. Gen. Dayan.and Khurana,
(supra) this Court has mentioned that on May 31, 1986 the Government of
India approved, in principle, the "Two Stream" concept of career management
of Army Officers of the rank of Maj. Gen. to the rank of Lt. Gen. subject to
the following stipulations :-
B
"(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 the Government vide Army HQrs No. PC-01102/MS 98
C

dated 7th February, 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. D
(c) A comprehensive r.eview 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." (pp. 354, 3-55)

__ In the said decision it has also been mentioned that this approval of the E
Government was preceded by the approval of the Prime Minister on May 26,
1986.

Similarly in Lt. General R.K. Anand (supra) it has been stated :-

"In order to satisfy ourselves whether the communication of 9th F
September, 1986 had received the concurrence of the concerned
Ministry, we inspected the department file and found that the matter
1 was referred to the Ministry of Defence and received the approval of
the Prime Minister." (p. 504)

It must, therefore, be held that the QRs for promotion of Non-General G
Cadre officer from the rank of Maj. Gen. to the rank of Lt. Gen. on which
reliance has been placed by the appellants had been approved by the Central
Government and the High Court was not right in holding that the said QRs
had not been approved.

The next question which needs examination is whether the said QRs can H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A be said to have been superseded by the letter dated February 5, 1992. The .
said letter may be reproduced as under :-

''CONCEPT OF CRITERIA APPOINTMENTS IN THE RANK FOR MAJOR
GENERAL: OTHER ARMS AND SERVICES'

B 1. Reference MS Branch letter No. 04560/1/IX/MS : Policy dated 22
April 90.

2. The concept cf criteria appointments for general officers of
supporting arms and services was first introduced in 1984. This issue
was deliberated upon during Army Commander's Conference held
C during Oct. 91 and it was decided to dispense with the concept of
criteria for officers of supporting arms and services in the rank of Maj.
Gen.

3. Henceforth, all appointments both within the Ccl"j)S and outside, in
the rank of Maj. Gen. for officers of supporting arms and services will
D be treated as command criteria appointments. However, there is no
change to the existing requirements before Maj. Gens. of supporting
arms and services can be considered for promotion to the· rank of Lt.
Gen., which are as follows :- ;.

E (a) The General Officer should have held the appointment for a
period of 18 months.

(b) The General officer should have earned minimum two reports
during the above period."

F Shri Anand has submitted that this letter is primarily concerned with the
concept of "criteria appointment" in the rank of Maj. Gen. for supporting
Arms and Services. The learned counsel has pointed out that the concept of
"criteria appointments" for officers in the rank of Maj. Gen. and Brig. was
introduced in 1984 and appointments in the rank of Maj. Gen. in Headquarters
G Commands were only designated as criteria appointments. Since these
appointments were only five in number in Arms and Services, it became very
difficult for the management to exercise all affected officers in criteria
appointments before being considered for promotion to the next rank and,
therefore, some selected appointments in Army Headquarters for Artillery,
Engineers and Signals were identified and designated as criteria appointments.
H It was further found that with the existing number of criteria appointments the
U.0.1. v. W.S. CHON A [S.C. AGRA WAL. J.] 429
problem of truncated tenures and frequent moves had not been fully resolved A
and it became neces·sary to designate additional appointments as criteria
appointments to enable the management to have adequate flexibility and to
_, provide stable tenures and, as a result though. a certain amount of stability
had been achieved in command tenure at Brig. level, the tenures of Maj. Gen.
continued to be short. A decision was, therefore, taken at the Army
Commander's Conference during October 1991 to dispense with the concept B
of criteria appointments for officers of supporting Arms and Services in the
rank of Maj. Gen. and to treat all appointments, both within the Corps and
outside, in the rank of Maj. Gen., as criteria appointments. The submission
is that the letter dated February 5, 1992 gives effect to the said decision taken
at the Army Commander's Conference held in October 1991. As regards C
promotion of Maj. Gen. of supporting Arms and Services to the rank of Lt.
Gen. the said letter clarifies that no change was being made in the existing
requirements, namely, that (i) the General Officer should have held the
appointment for a period of 18 months and (ii) the General Officer should have
earned minimum two reports during this period of 18 months. Shri Anand has
pointed out that the said two requiren:ients were general requirements wliich D
had been in operations ever since 1984 for the purpose of promotion from the
rank of Maj Gen. to the rank of Lt. Gen. and the letter dated February 5, 1992
has no bearing on the QRs which had been adopted for the purpose of
promotion of Non-General Cadre officrrs from the rank of Maj. Gen. to the
rank of Lt. Gen. in the "Staff Only" Stream and that the fulfilment of the said E
QRs cannot be said to have been dispensed with by the letter dated February
5, 1992.

We find merit in the said contention of the learned counsel. The Jetter
dated February 5, 1992 primarily relates to dispensing with the concept of
criteria appointments in the rank of Maj. Gen. in supporting Arms and Services F
and gives effect to the decision taken at the Army Commander's Conference
held in October 1991 and, as a result all appointments, both within the Corps
and outside, in the rank of Maj. Gen. for officers of supporting Arms and
Services are to be treated as ''Command Criteria Appointments''. The statement
in the said letter that "there is no change to the existing requirements before G
Maj. Gen. of supporting arms and services can be considered for promotion
to the rank of Lt. Gen." only clarifies that the said requirements would
continue to be followed for such promotion. Since these requirements were
· in existence prior to the adoption of the QRs in 1986, the reiteration of the
said requirements in the letter dated February 5, 1992 does not, in any way,·
effect the operation of the QRs as adopted in 1986 for the purpose of H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A pronrntion of Non-General Cadre officers from the rank of Maj. Gen. to the .,.._
rank of Lt. Gen. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Judges
of the High Court that after letter dated February 5, 1992, the QRs primarily
adopted for the purpose of promotion of Non-General Cadre officers from the
rank of Maj. Gen. to the rank of Lt. Gen. "Staff Only" Stream .had ceased to
B operate.

It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether the respondent satisfies
the QRs for promotion of Non-General Cadre officers from the rank of Maj.
.
Gen. to the rank of Lt. Gen. in the "Staff Only" Stream. As indicated earlier,
clause (b) of the said QRs requires that the officer's performance on staff
C appointment should be of a high order and he should be considered fit in all
respects to hold various staff, instructional and ERE appointments in the
higher rank. The question is whether the respondent has held staff
-
appointments outside his Corps as Brig./Maj. Gen. The respondent has
submitted that he fulfils the said requirement and has pointed out that he has
held the following appointments :-
D
(a) Deputy Director General & Chief Engineer with DGNP
Vishakapatnam from April 1986 to December 1987, in the rank of Brig.

(b) Deputy Director General Works (Navy) at Army HQ Engineer-in-
Chief's Branch from April 1988 to September 1992 in the rank of Brig.
E
(c) Deputy Commandant College of Military Engineering, Pune from
October 1992-December 1992 in the rank of Maj. Gen.

(d) Chief Project Manager, redesignated as Engineer-in-Chief (Works),
C-DOT, New Delhi from 28th December, 1992-31 October, 1994 in the
F rank of Maj. Gen.
'
On behalf of the appellants Shri Anand has urged that neither of these
appointments can be regarded as a Staff appointment as envisaged in clause
(b) of the QRs. The submission is that Staff appointment that.is contemplated
G in the said clause (b) of the QRs is other than the Corps Staff appointment
and contemplates graded staff appointment outside the Corps so that the
officer can have the essential expertise to hold specified staff appointment in
the rank of Lt. Gen. which does not belong to any particular Arm or Service.
It has been submitted that the various appointments held by the respondent,
namely, Deputy Director and Chief Engineer with Director General Naval
H Project, Visakhapatnam as Brig, Deputy Director General Works (Navy) at
U.0.1. v. W.S. CHON A [S.C. AGRA WAL . .l.j 431

Army Headquarters, Engineer-in-Chief Branch as Brig. and Deputy A
Commandant, College of Military Engineering, Pune in the rank of Maj. Gen.
were all Corps appointments and were not graded staff appointments. As
regards his appointment as Chief Project Manager, redesignated as Engineer-
in-Chief (Works), C-DOT, it was submitted that though, in view of letter dated
February 5, 1992 the period of deputation with C-DOT was to be treated as B
a part of effective commissioned service in the Army for the purpose of
promotion, the said appointment had to be treated only as Corps Staff
appointment which could be counted for the purpose of Corps appointment
on the post of Lt. Gen., and that the said appointment with C-DOT could not
be treated as a Staff appointment for the purpose of clause (b) of the QRs.
It was pointed out that the respondent was considered for promotion to the C
rank of Lt. Gen. in a Corps appointment by the Special Selection Board which
met on October 21, 1994 but he was not selected. The submission is that
period of service of the respondent with C-DOT was taken into consideration
for the purpose of promotion to the rank of Lt. Gen. and it is not correct to
say that the terms on which the respondent. joined C-DOT on deputation as
contained in the letter dated February 5, 1992 were not given effect to. D

Shri Mukul Rohtagi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent, has urged that the word "Staff appointment" in clause (b) of the
QRs covers all Staff appointments whether within the Corps or outside Corps
and, therefore, the experience of the respondent on the post held by him as E
Brig. and Maj. Gen., including his experience with C-DOT, had to be treated
as Staff appointment for the purpose of promotion to the post of Lt. Gen. on
the "Staff Only" Stream. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Clause
(b) of the QRs envisages that the staff has to be a Staff appointment outside
the Corps and performance of the officer on such appointment should be of
higher order so that he can be considered fit in all respects to hold various F
staff, instructional and extra regimental (ERE) appointments in the higher rank.
A Corps Staff appointment only enables an officer to acquire experience of
the work relating to his Arm or Service and does not enable him to acquire
experience in other fields which is necessary for promotion to the rank of Lt.
Gen on the "Staff Only" Stream. The performance of the officer on a Corps G
Staff appointment is already covered by clause (a) of the QRs which requires
that the performance of the officer in Corps appointment should be of a very
high order. Since Corps appointments [which would include a Corps Staff
appointment] are already covered by clause (a), the Staff appointment in
clause (b) must necessarily mean a Staff appointment outside the Corps. We
are, therefore, in agreement with the submission of Shri Anand that clause (b) H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS fl997J SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A of the QRs only contemplates a Staff appointment outside the Corps. Since
the appointments held by the respondent, both as Brig. and Maj. Gen.,
including that with the C-DOT, were Corps appoinments and were not graded
Staff appointments, it cannot be said that he fulfilled the qualitative requirement
contemplated in clause (b) of the QRs. We, therefore, do not find any infim1ity
B in the recommendation of the Special Sel~ction Board treating him unfit for
promotion to the rank of Lt. Gen. in the "Staff Only" stream which
recommendation had been approved by the Central Government.

The High Court was, therefore, in error in interfering with the said
decision of the Central Government and quashing the order dated November
C I, 1994. Once it is held that there is no infirmity in the non-selection of the
respondent for promotion from the rank of Maj. Gen. to the rank of Lt. Gen.
by the Special Selection Board which met in July 1994, the respondent had
to retire as Maj. Gen. after attaining the age of 56 years on October 31, 1994
and the direction contained in the letter dated January 4, 1994 regarding his
date of superannuation from the. Army has been rightly issued and the High
D Court was in error in quashing the same. In the impugned judgment of the
High Court there are adverse remarks against the functionaries at the higher
level both at the Army Headquarters as well as in the Ministry of Defence.
The said remark~, in our opinion, were uncalled for and are, therefore, set
aside.
E
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High
Court dated November I0, 1995 is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the
respondent is dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.

H.K. Appeal Allowed.