COAS must reconsider Territorial Army officer's 'Z' grading; appeal partly allowed with three-month direction

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal by Lt. Col. NK Ghai (Retd.) challenging the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which had dismissed his claims for promotion to the substantive rank of Colonel and other reliefs. The petition raised issues of selection-board gradings, alleged unequal treatment vis-à-vis another officer and the exercise of powers by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) under the Defence Services Regulations.

The Court partly allowed the appeal and directed a limited remedy: it ordered reconsideration by the COAS of the appellant’s grading in the No. 3 Selection Board proceedings of June 2001. The Court noted that the selection process was elaborate and confidential, that the appellant had repeatedly been graded "Z" in five selection processes, and that respondent No.2’s grading had been altered by the COAS from "Z" to "B" on reconsideration. The Court recorded that, under the Defence Services Regulations, the COAS was the final authority for granting promotions and that "Z is unfit for promotion to the next higher rank at present." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Now, coming to the No.3 Selection Board of June, 2001, it is mentioned in the record that grading of ‘Z’ was given to respondent No.2. The grading of respondent No.2 has been altered by the COAS by converting ‘Z’ into ‘B’. According to the DSR, the final authority for granting promotions is the COAS. We find that in the case of respondent No.2, the COAS reconsidered his case. However, that was not done in the case of the appellant. In our view, as the COAS has reconsidered the case of respondent No.2, the case of the appellant for upgradation ought to have been considered. Hence, we direct reconsideration of the grading given to the appellant in the selection process of June 2001. No other modification can be made to the impugned Judgment. We direct that in the selection process of June 2001, the case of the appellant for upgradation from category ‘Z’ shall be considered by the COAS. An appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of three months from today." The Court confirmed the Tribunal's judgment in all other respects and provided that, if grading ‘Z’ were ultimately upgraded, the appellant’s claim for notional promotion and consequential benefits would be considered.

Background The appellant was commissioned into the Territorial Army on 14 March 1978 and rose to Selection Grade Lieutenant Colonel with promotions in 1991 and 1996. He sought promotion to Colonel after completing 22 years' service and raised multiple statutory and non‑statutory complaints between 1998 and 2006 concerning Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), non‑empanelment and alleged procedural infirmities. A writ petition in the Delhi High Court resulted in a direction to dispose of a statutory complaint by reasoned order; the complaint was rejected on 28 April 2006 and the matter was later transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its judgment dated 2 November 2017, found no error in not placing the appellant in an acceptable grade for promotion.

Before the Supreme Court the appellant, appearing in person, submitted that his ACRs were "above average or near excellent" and invoked Clause (c) of Paragraph 38 of the Territorial Army Regulations, 1948, which provided eligibility for promotion by selection to Colonel after 22 years’ service. The respondents, through the Additional Solicitor General, relied on Paragraph 108 of the Defence Services Regulations, 1987, explaining that selection‑board assessments were recommendatory and that the COAS had the power to modify or review recommendations. Confidential selection‑board proceedings, produced in a sealed envelope, showed that the appellant had been graded 'Z' in five selection processes while respondent No.2 had received a 'B' in certain proceedings and later had his grading altered by the COAS.

The Supreme Court examined the confidential records and concluded that, because the COAS had reconsidered respondent No.2’s grading, the appellant’s case ought to have been afforded similar consideration. Therefore the Court directed reconsideration of the appellant’s grading in the June 2001 selection process within three months, confirmed the impugned order in other respects and remitted the consequences to be decided in accordance with the outcome of that reconsideration.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4653 of 2018 (INSC 2025/750) Case Title: Lt. Col NK Ghai (Retd.) v. Union of India and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Lt. Col. NK Ghai (Retd.), appearing in person For the Respondent(s): Additional Solicitor General (ASG) for the Union of India (name not specified)