UNION OF INDIA vs. LT. COL. SAMEER SINGH

REPORTABLE

Versus

J U D G M E N T Deepak Gupta, J. Leave granted. 2. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the Technical Assessment Reports (TARs for short) of an Army officer are to be taken into consideration while considering his case for Permanent   Secondment   in   the   Directorate   General   Quality Assurance (DGQA for short), after the office memorandum dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.12.02 16:44:17 IST Reason: 12.05.2011 came into force? 1 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent herein was commissioned in the Indian Army in 1994.  He earned various promotions and while holding the post of Lt. Colonel in the Indian Army, he was posted in the DGQA.  After completion of two years of service in the Collectorate of Quality Assurance, he fell in the zone of consideration of Permanent Secondment. His   case   was   considered   by   the   Quality   Assurance   Selection Board (QASB for short) held on 17.02.2016.   The respondent’s case   was   not   recommended   for   Permanent   Secondment.     On finding   that   his   name   has   not   been   recommended,   the respondent made enquiries and came to know that his case has not been recommended since in the TAR for the year 2014­15, it was found that he was ‘NOT YET FIT’ for Permanent Secondment in DGQA.  In the next year, i.e. 2015­16, he was declared ‘NOT FIT’ in the TAR.  Thereafter, he was reverted to the Indian Army. 4. Aggrieved by the said action, the respondent filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court contending that he fulfilled the requirements   of   Office   Memorandum   dated   12.05.2011   which sets   out   the   criteria   to   be   followed   for   grant   of   Permanent 2 Secondment   to   service   officers   of   the   rank   of   Lt.   Colonel   in DGQA. 5. The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the  TARs   could   not  be  taken   into   consideration.     Hence   this appeal by the Union of India. 6. We have heard learned Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG assisted by Ms. Aakansha Kaul, learned counsel for the appellants, and Ms. Arati Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent.  It would be apposite to refer to the various instructions issued by the appellants from time to time.  Initially,   as   per   the   office memorandum   of  08.04.2004,  the   consideration  for   Permanent Secondment to the DGQA was based on the TARs, and relevant part of the criteria reads as under:­ “Part­II: Assessment by the Reporting Officer 1. Technical (a) Nature of work assigned : to the Reportee (b) Aptitude of the Reportee : towards Quality         Assurance related work (c) Technical   Knowledge   of   the   officer   and practical ability to apply the theoretical   knowledge (d) Sense   of   dedication   and   responsibility   towards QA work. (e) Details of outstanding/notable work done by the reportee, if any 3 Signature Name of the officer Rank/Designation Part III: Remarks of the Technical Director 1. Remarks with reference to specific  comments given by the Reporting Officer 2. Fitness or otherwise for Permanent  Secondment in DGQA Organisation.  Signature: Part IV: Remarks of DGQA 1. is fit/not yet fit for Permanent  Secondment in DGQA Organisation 2. Performance of should, be watched for  another months before consideration for  Permanent Secondment. Signature”    The   first   portion   was   to   be   filled   in   by   the   Head   of   the establishment.  Thereafter, the technical Director was to give his remarks and also assess whether the officer was fit or otherwise for Permanent Secondment in DGQA Organisation and, finally these remarks were to be approved or modified, as the case may be by the DGQA.   7. On   12.05.2011   an   office   memorandum   was   issued,   the relevant portion of which reads as follows:­ “1.       xxx                                                       xxx xxx 4 (i) Offrs of the rank of Lt Col (Substantive) only will be considered for grant of Permanent Secondment (ii) Officer should have minimum of two years of regular service from the date of reporting to   DGQA   organisation   before   being considered by QASB for grant of Permanent Secondment. (iii) Officers   should   not   have   been   finally superseded   as   on   date   of   acceptance   by DGQA  on  tenure (the  date of  approval of board proceedings for acceptance of officers on tenure by DGQA) (iv) Mean   value   of   all   box   grading   for   seven years should not be less than ‘7’ including ACRs earned in DGQA. (v) Mean value of box grading in 3 Mandatory Qualities   (LOAYLITY,   DECISIVENESS   & DEPENDABILITY) should not be less than ‘7’ and in respect of INTEGRITY should not be less than ‘8’. (vi) Should be in acceptable medical category as stipulated   in   Appendix   ‘A’   to   MOD   OM No.67952/Q/DGI(Adm­)/10412/D(PRODN) dated 28 Oct 1978 as amended from time to time (vii) The   officer   should   have   undergone   Basic Quality   Management   Course   (BQMC)   at DIAQ, Bangalore and should have obtained above average grading. (viii) The   disciplinary   record   of   the   officers should not be adverse. Note: xxx xxx xxx 2.     xxx                                                         xxx xxx 5 3.     These revised criteria will be applicable to all   Service   Officers   inducted   into   DGQA   on tenure prospectively from the date of issue of this OM.  In the interim period QASBs will be held as per policy in vogue. 4. This   supersedes   all   previous instructions/guidelines   issued   on   the subject. 5.   This issues with the approval of Hon’ble Raksh Mantri.” 8. It has been urged by Ms. Kaul, that though the second office memorandum dated 12.05.2011 does not refer to the TARs but at the same time it does not specifically overrule the office memorandum dated 08.04.2004, and it is submitted that the said   office   memorandum   has   invariably   been   applied   by   the appellants and the TARs of every Military officer who has been granted Permanent Secondment in DGQA have been taken into consideration.  It is further submitted that the purpose of TAR is different from the Assessment Report and as such essential to assess   the   suitability   of   the   candidate   for   Permanent Secondment   into   the   DGQA.     It   is   also   submitted   that   even otherwise the employer could apply any criteria which it deems 6 fit and it is not for the employee to suggest what criteria should be made applicable.   9. On the other hand, Ms. Mahajan, submits that a reading of the   office   memorandum   dated   12.05.2011   squarely   indicates that   only   the   criteria   mentioned   therein   could   be   taken  into consideration and none else. 10. We have carefully gone through the various instructions and also considered the averments of the parties.   When the office   memorandum   dated   12.05.2011   is   read,   it   leaves   no manner of doubt that it is only the criteria laid down in this memorandum which would apply to all service officers inducted into  DGQA   on   tenure   basis,   after   the   issuance   of   this   office memorandum.     This  is   apparent  from   Clause   3  of  the   office memorandum, which clearly mentions this fact and it is also mentioned that in the interim period, QASBs shall be held as per the policy in vogue.  The earlier policy which was in vogue was the   one   which   took   into   consideration   the   TARs.     The   office memorandum   of   12.05.2011   lays   down   a   large   number   of criteria.   It specifically mentions that the grading for 7 years should not be less than 7, including the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs for short) earned in DGQA.  A minimum grading 7 in the medical category and mandatory qualities have been laid down.  It has been specifically mentioned that the officer should have not only undergone the Basic Quality Management Course at   Bangalore,   but   should   also   should   have   obtained   ‘Above Average’ grading.  Clause 4 of this office memorandum mentions that   this   memorandum   supersedes   all   previous instructions/guidelines   issued   on   this   subject.     This,   in   our opinion,   would   also   include   the   guidelines   of   08.04.2004, because there is no exception for the same. 11. It was urged on behalf of  the  appellants that the office memorandum dated 08.04.2004 is in the nature of executive instructions approved by the Raksha Mantri, and continued to apply and cannot be deemed to be superseded.  We are not in agreement with this submission.  The office memorandum dated 12.05.2011 is also in the nature executive instruction, issued with the approval of the Raksha Mantri.  We must assume that the   authorities   who   issued   the   office   memorandum   dated 12.05.2011   were   aware   of   the   earlier   office   memorandum   of 08.04.2004.   The office memorandum of 2011 is broader than the office memorandum of 2004 and the office memorandum of 8 2011 which is later in time specifically supersedes all previous instructions/guidelines issued on the subject. 12. Another fact which has been brought to our notice by Ms. Mahajan is that the office memorandum dated 12.05.2011 was amended on 14.06.2011 and it was specifically mentioned that the officers rejected in QASB for grant of Permanent Secondment will not be re­considered in subsequent QASBs.   In case the appellants wanted to make TAR a mandatory requirement for fulfilling   the   eligibility   criteria   they   could   have   done   that   by making   similar   amendment   or   issuing   another   office memorandum in this regard, but that did not happen. 13. On behalf of the appellants it has been urged that another letter was issued on 14.07.2014, wherein it is noted that the TARs   have   been   initiated   by   some   officers   in   a   very   casual manner.  The importance of TAR has been reiterated and it has been   mentioned   that   this   has   serious   implication   on   the consideration and subsequent Permanent Secondment of tenure Colonels to the DGQA Organisation, and one of the mistakes pointed out is that it has not been indicated in the TAR whether the   officer   is   FIT/NOT   FIT/NOT   YET   FIT,   for   Permanent Secondment in DGQA.  It is true that this letter emphasises the 9 importance of the TAR but in view of the clear language of office memorandum dated 12.05.2011, it still cannot be taken into consideration.  It is not clear as to why in this very letter it could not have been mentioned that TAR should also be taken into consideration   while   considering   the   case   for   Permanent Secondment.   The TAR may be taken into consideration while grading the officer for the purposes of ACR but once the ACR is being   taken   into   consideration   then   in   view   of   the   office memorandum dated 12.05.2011, we have no doubt in our mind that the TAR is the criteria which could not have been taken into consideration.   14. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of   the   Delhi   High   Court.   Stay   stands   vacated.   Pending applications(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. …………………………..J. (Deepak Gupta) …………………………..J. (Aniruddha Bose) New Delhi December 02, 2019 10