Union Of India & Ors. vs Col Amardeep Singh
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 13.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 01.07.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 01.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2531/2024, CM APPL. 10355/2024, CM APPL.
10356/2024 and CM APPL. 33565/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with
Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Tanya,
Advs. with Col. Sarika, Maj
Tarun Pillai, Maj. Anish
Muralidhar.
Versus
COL AMARDEEP SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aditya Singh Puar, Mr.
Parthsarthi Hirani, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners assail the
correctness of the Order dated 11.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’)
in O.A. No. 716/2023, whereby the Original Application (‘OA’)
preferred by the Respondent came to be allowed and the Petitioners
were directed to grant to the Respondent the substantive ranks of
Brigadier and thereafter Major General with retrospective seniority
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 1 of 17
corresponding to his approved civil appointment in the Survey of
India (hereinafter referred to as ‘SoI’).
2. By way of the aforesaid OA, the Respondent had challenged the
order dated 06.02.2023, whereby his claim for conferment of the
substantive ranks of Brigadier and Major General was rejected on the
ground that the Respondent, being placed in a low medical category,
did not fulfil the promotable medical standards applicable for the grant
of higher substantive rank under the governing Army Regulations and
policies.
3. Thus, the principal question which arises for consideration
before this Court is whether the Tribunal committed any error in
directing conferment of substantive military ranks upon the
Respondent despite his placement in a low medical category and the
governing Army Regulations relied upon by the Petitioners.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
4. In order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective,
it becomes necessary to notice the relevant facts leading to the passing
of the Impugned Order.
5. The Respondent was initially commissioned in the Corps of
Engineers of the Indian Army and, thereafter, upon selection through
the Union Public Service Commission, was permanently seconded to
the SoI Group ‘A’ Service in April 2005. His subsequent service
conditions came to be governed by the Survey of India (Group ‘A’)
Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1989 Rules’), which
provide for an integrated service comprising Civil and Defence
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 2 of 17
Streams and prescribe equivalence between specified civil posts and
military ranks.
6. In terms of the said Rules, the post of Additional Surveyor
General (Senior Administrative Grade - Level 14) in the Defence
Stream is stated to be equated with the military rank of Major General
for purposes of service equivalence, while the post of Director (Level
13) corresponds to the rank of Brigadier, subject to completion of the
prescribed commissioned service.
7. The Respondent was promoted within the SoI organisation to
the post of Director on 26.12.2012 and continued to discharge duties
within the Defence Stream under the equivalence framework
contemplated under the 1989 Rules.
8. Subsequently, pursuant to recommendations of the competent
authorities and approval of the Appointments Committee of the
Cabinet (‘ACC’), the Respondent was empanelled for promotion to
the post of Additional Surveyor General in Level 14. The Department
of Science and Technology issued an order dated 05.02.2020 directing
the implementation of the said decision, and the promotion of the
Respondent was thereafter notified in the Gazette of India on
28.08.2020, issued in the name of the President of India, promoting
him to the post of Additional Surveyor General with effect from
05.02.2020.
9. Following the said promotion, the Respondent functioned as
Additional Surveyor General in Level 14 and discharged duties
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 3 of 17
attached to the said civil post within the organisational structure of the
SoI.
10. The Respondent completed 23 years of commissioned service
on 12.06.2020 and 25 years of commissioned service on 12.06.2022.
The Respondent thereafter contended that, under the equivalence
framework contained in the 1989 Rules, he had become eligible for
conferment of the substantive ranks of Brigadier and Major General
respectively. In this regard, the SoI authorities addressed
communications to Army Headquarters requesting consideration of
the grant of the corresponding military ranks.
11. The Petitioners, however, declined to confer the said ranks upon
the Respondent, inter alia , on the ground that the Respondent was
placed in a low medical category and did not satisfy the promotable
medical standards applicable for the grant of higher substantive
military rank under the governing Army Regulations and
administrative policies.
12. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant substantive rank despite his
promotion to a Major General equivalent civil post, the Respondent
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 716/2023, challenging the
decision of the authorities and seeking conferment of the ranks of
Brigadier and Major General along with consequential benefits.
13. During the pendency of the proceedings, an office order issued
in September 2023 reverted Defence Stream Officers (hereinafter
referred to as ‘DSOs’) from the SoI back to Military Survey with
effect from 31.03.2023. According to the Respondent, while certain
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 4 of 17
similarly placed officers were reverted holding higher substantive
ranks, he was reverted in the rank of Colonel, which, according to
him, resulted in loss of status and seniority despite his having served
against a Level-14 civil post.
14. The Tribunal passed the Impugned Order dated 11.10.2023,
allowing the OA and directing the Petitioners to confer upon the
Respondent the substantive ranks of Brigadier and Major General with
original seniority and consequential benefits.
15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions issued by the Tribunal,
the Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
16. Heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the
record.
17. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits as under:
i. The conferment of the substantive military rank of
Brigadier or Major General is not automatic upon holding an
equivalent civil post in the SoI and necessarily remains subject to
the promotion policies, medical standards and eligibility criteria
applicable to Army officers.
ii. The Respondent belonged to the batch of 1997, whereas
officers of the earlier 1994 batch had only recently been
considered for promotion to the rank of Major General. Grant of
substantive rank to the Respondent ahead of his batch and seniors
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 5 of 17
would disrupt the settled promotion structure applicable in the
Army.
iii. Paragraph 67 of the Defence Service Regulations, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as ‘DSR’). DSR governs substantive
promotion and clearly contemplates assessment of overall
suitability, including medical fitness. The grant of military rank
cannot be treated as a mere ministerial consequence of civil
promotion.
iv. The 1989 Rules merely provide equivalence for
administrative purposes and do not override Army Regulations
relating to substantive promotion. Equivalence of posts cannot be
construed as conferring an enforceable right to military
promotion.
v. Posts held by DSOs are supernumerary appointments and
do not form part of the sanctioned substantive cadre strength of
Lt. Colonel and above in the Regular Army. Consequently,
holding an equivalent civil post does not automatically entitle an
officer to conferment of substantive military rank.
vi. The Respondent cannot approbate and reprobate. In
Ground ‘G’ of the OA, the Respondent himself relied upon the
Government of India letter dated 24.02.1992 to contend that
conferment of military rank upon such officers was largely
symbolic and that they were retained in supernumerary strength
for purposes of rank. Having sought benefit under the said policy,
the Respondent cannot now deny applicability of the conditions
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 6 of 17
attached thereto, including compliance with prescribed medical
standards for the grant of substantive military rank.
vii. Judicial review ought not to substitute the decision of
specialised military authorities in matters concerning promotion
and organisational structure.
18. Per contra , learned counsel representing the Respondent
supports the Impugned Order and submits as under:
i. Upon secondment to the SoI Group ‘A’ Service, the
Respondent’s service became governed by the statutory 1989
Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, which create
an integrated civil service with expressly defined equivalence
between civil posts and military ranks.
ii. The Respondent was promoted to the post of Additional
Surveyor General (Senior Administrative Grade - Level 14)
pursuant to approval of the ACC and a Gazette Notification
issued in the name of the President of India. The said promotion,
being statutory and Presidential in character, could not be diluted
or nullified by internal Army policies or administrative letters.
iii. Under the equivalence framework contained in the 1989
Rules, once a DSO holds the post of Additional Surveyor
General and completes the prescribed commissioned service,
conferment of the equivalent substantive military rank follows as
a matter of course and does not require a fresh Army selection
process.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 7 of 17
iv. The Petitioners incorrectly treated the matter as an Army
promotion exercise and relied upon a non-statutory Ministry of
Defence letter dated 24.02.1992 and Paragraph 67 of DSR to
deny rank, despite the 1989 Rules not prescribing any medical
fitness requirement for conferment of equivalent rank.
v. Paragraph 67 itself does not create an absolute bar against
promotion of officers placed in S H A P E (hereinafter referred
1 1 1 1 2
to as ‘SHAPE-2’) medical category and permits promotion in
exceptional cases based on suitability and functional
employability, which, according to the Respondent, stood
recorded in his favour.
vi. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme
1
Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Brigadier Javed Iqbal , to
submit that medical category SHAPE-2 does not constitute an
absolute impediment to promotion and that subordinate
authorities cannot defeat a promotion otherwise duly approved by
competent authorities.
vii. Similarly placed officers who served in equivalent Level-
14 posts were granted higher substantive ranks upon reversion,
whereas the Respondent alone was reverted as Colonel, thereby
resulting in hostile discrimination rightly corrected by the
Tribunal.
19. No other submissions have been made by the learned counsel
representing the parties.
1
(2022) 17 SCC 450
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 8 of 17
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
20. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel representing the parties and perused the material placed on
record. Before examining the correctness of the Impugned Order, it is
necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of judicial review
exercised by this Court over decisions rendered by the Armed Forces
Tribunal.
21. The jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution is
supervisory in nature and does not permit substitution of judicial
opinion for institutional assessment undertaken within specialised
military frameworks. Interference is therefore warranted only where
the Tribunal proceeds upon a misinterpretation of governing
regulations or grants relief contrary to the statutory scheme regulating
service conditions of Army officers.
22. The controversy essentially centres around the legal effect of
the equivalence framework contained in the 1989 Rules vis-à-vis the
statutory and regulatory regime governing substantive promotions
within the Indian Army. The core question requiring determination is
whether holding a civil post declared equivalent to a higher military
rank automatically entitles a DSO to conferment of such substantive
rank, notwithstanding non-fulfilment of Army promotion
requirements.
23. It is not in dispute that upon permanent secondment to the SoI,
the Respondent became part of an integrated service governed by the
1989 Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Rules
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 9 of 17
recognise equivalence between specified civil appointments and
military ranks for purposes of organisational parity and functional
coordination between Civil and Defence Streams. However, a careful
reading of the Rules reveals that they do not create an independent
promotional channel nor provide that conferment of substantive
military rank shall automatically follow civil promotion, particularly
on repatriation of officers to defence forces.
24. At this stage, the distinction between equivalence of post and
substantive military promotion assumes critical significance.
Equivalence operates within the administrative domain to maintain
parity of status and facilitate inter-departmental functioning within the
SoI structure. Substantive rank in the Army, however, represents
formal placement of an officer within the command, responsibility and
seniority framework of the Armed Forces. It determines eligibility for
appointments, authority structure and integration within the military
hierarchy. Such an arrangement cannot be divorced from the
promotion system through which it is regulated.
25. The Petitioners have relied upon Paragraph 67 of the DSR
governing substantive promotion by selection. The provision clearly
contemplates assessment of overall suitability, including medical
fitness and comparative evaluation within the promotion stream.
Promotion to higher substantive rank in the Army therefore cannot be
reduced to a ministerial consequence flowing merely from civil
advancement. Military promotion remains a specialised domain where
considerations of medical category, cadre management, operational
readiness and organisational balance legitimately operate.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 10 of 17
26. The Respondent’s placement in a low medical category is an
admitted position. While a SHAPE-2 medical category may not
operate as an absolute bar in every situation, the governing regulations
vest discretion in competent military authorities to determine
promotability. Medical categorisation constitutes an essential
component of promotability and eligibility for conferment of higher
rank and is not confined merely to suitability for a particular posting.
An officer granted substantive rank remains liable for deployment
across the spectrum of responsibilities attached to that rank. Courts
exercising judicial review would not like to dilute operational
standards evolved by the Armed Forces.
27. The submission that the 1989 Rules override Army Regulations
also cannot be accepted in absolute terms. The Rules regulate service
conditions within the SoI cadre, whereas Army Regulations and
governing promotion policies administer conferment of military rank.
Harmonious construction requires both regimes to operate within their
respective spheres. Civil equivalence ensures organisational parity,
while military promotion continues to remain regulated by the Army’s
independent statutory and policy framework. The 1989 Rules do not
expressly or impliedly abrogate the promotion norms applicable to
Army officers.
28. The material on record further indicates that DSOs are
maintained in supernumerary positions distinct from the regular
promotional cadre strength of Lt. Colonel and above in the Army.
Conferment of higher substantive rank therefore carries implications
extending beyond individual status and directly impacts promotion
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 11 of 17
avenues and seniority alignment within the regular Army cadre.
Judicial directions cannot be issued in isolation without regard to such
service-wide consequences affecting officers who are not before this
Court.
29. The Respondent belongs to the 1997 batch, whereas officers of
the earlier 1994 batch had only recently entered the zone of
consideration for promotion to the rank of Major General. Promotion
within the Army follows a calibrated batch-wise progression
maintaining inter se seniority and cadre balance. Conferment of
substantive rank upon the Respondent ahead of seniors would disturb
the established promotion hierarchy. The plea of discrimination based
on reversion of certain officers holding higher ranks is equally
untenable, as conferment of substantive rank depends upon individual
eligibility and regulatory assessment. Mere differing outcomes, absent
demonstrable parity, do not establish hostile discrimination, and
Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not recognise negative
equality.
30. The Petitioners have further placed reliance upon the Military
Secretary (‘MS’) Branch Policy letters dated 14.12.2012 and
31.03.2015 governing medical classification, promotability and
eligibility for promotion to select ranks of Colonel and above. It was
submitted that the Respondent’s claim for conferment of substantive
rank was required to be examined within the framework of the
aforesaid policies and the applicable Army promotion norms.
31. The Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the
requirements of MS Branch Policy letters dated 14.12.2012 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 12 of 17
31.03.2015, which require assessment of an officer for promotion in
accordance with prescribed military standards. Furthermore, the
question whether relaxation could be granted to the Respondent
despite his placement in a low medical category lay within the
exclusive domain of the competent Army authorities. If sustained, the
Impugned Order would effectively bypass the suitability assessment
required to be undertaken by such authorities.
32. The Tribunal has also overlooked that the promotion of the
Respondent was reconsidered by the MS Branch pursuant to the order
dated 22.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 16094/2022
captioned Col. Amardeep Singh IC 59054Y v. Union of India & Ors.
Upon obtaining and considering the requisite medical opinion, the
competent authority passed a reasoned order dated 06.02.2023
concluding that the Respondent did not satisfy the medical
requirements for promotion to the rank of Brigadier. Additionally, the
Tribunal has placed much reliance on communications issued by the
SoI concerning the Respondent’s duties and functional requirements
while serving within that organisation.
33. The Tribunal has further overlooked that the Respondent stood
permanently repatriated in view of Paragraph No.5.2.2.7 of National
Geospatial Policy, 2022, and was assigned a posting by the MS
Branch vide order dated 14.09.2023, prior to the passing of the
Impugned Order on 11.10.2023. It has also been brought to the notice
of this Court that the proceedings instituted by the Respondent and
certain other officers challenging such permanent repatriation were
dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 06.09.2023. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 13 of 17
correctness of the said decision is presently the subject matter of
challenge in W.P.(C) 12069/2023 captioned Col Kshitij Sudhir
Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , which remains pending
consideration.
34. Once the Respondent stood permanently repatriated and his
case came to be reconsidered by the competent Army authorities, the
issue of promotability necessarily fell for assessment in accordance
with the norms and standards applicable within the Indian Army and
not merely on the basis of functional requirements communicated by
the SoI. It was in this context that the competent authority proceeded
to pass the fresh order dated 06.02.2023 after evaluating the
Respondent’s eligibility under the governing Army framework.
35. The Respondent also cannot approbate and reprobate. In
Ground ‘G’ of the OA, reliance was placed upon the Government of
India letter dated 24.02.1992 to contend that conferment of military
rank upon DSOs was largely symbolic and that such officers were
maintained in supernumerary strength for purposes of rank. Having
sought benefit under the said policy framework, the Respondent
cannot simultaneously deny applicability of the conditions attached
thereto, including compliance with prescribed eligibility and medical
standards governing conferment of substantive military rank.
36. Further, the reliance placed by the Respondent upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in Brigadier Javed Iqbal (supra) is
misplaced. The said judgment recognises that placement in SHAPE-2
medical category may not operate as an absolute bar where promotion
is otherwise permissible under the governing rules. However, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 14 of 17
decision does not lay down that medical eligibility or selection
requirements forming part of the applicable promotion framework
stand rendered irrelevant. In the present case, the dispute concerns
entitlement to conferment of substantive rank itself, which remains
subject to satisfaction of prescribed promotion norms. The precedent,
therefore, does not advance the Respondent’s case.
37. This Court is also mindful that judicial review does not extend
to substituting the Court’s assessment for that of specialised military
authorities in matters relating to promotion, suitability and force
structure unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or
contrary to statutory provisions. The record further indicates that the
Respondent’s case was reconsidered by the competent MS Branch
authorities pursuant to judicial directions and a reasoned order dated
06.02.2023 came to be passed after obtaining the requisite medical
opinion. The decision declining conferment of substantive rank
records considerations directly traceable to the governing regulatory
framework, namely applicability of promotion norms, medical
eligibility and position within the promotion hierarchy. No perversity,
arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference is demonstrated
38. The Tribunal, while allowing the OA, proceeded on the
assumption that civil promotion under the 1989 Rules necessarily
carried entitlement to equivalent substantive military rank. In the
considered opinion of this Court, such an approach, overlooks the
regulatory distinction between administrative equivalence and military
promotion and effectively renders Army promotion standards
inapplicable to DSOs, a consequence neither contemplated by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 15 of 17
statutory framework nor compatible with uniform military
administration.
39. Accordingly, this Court holds that conferment of substantive
military rank is inseparable from the statutory promotion framework
governing the Army. Holding an equivalent civil appointment or
completion of qualifying service does not create an enforceable right
to substantive rank absent satisfaction of promotion norms, including
medical eligibility and selection requirements.
CONCLUSION:
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, the present
Writ Petition is allowed. The Impugned Order dated 11.10.2023
passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 716/2023 is hereby set aside.
41. It is clarified that this judgment shall not preclude the
competent military authorities from considering the case of the
Respondent in accordance with applicable rules and policies, if
otherwise found eligible in future or upon change of relevant
circumstances, strictly in accordance with law.
42. It is further clarified that setting aside of the Impugned Order
shall not result in reduction of the pay and financial benefits already
admissible to the Respondent in terms of the civil post held by him in
the SoI, if otherwise protected under the applicable service rules and
orders.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 16 of 17
43. The present Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. The pending applications also stand closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
JULY 01, 2026
sp/s.godara/shah
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:01.07.2026
15:12:28
W.P.(C) 2531/2024 Page 17 of 17