After CR Redressal, Brig Rohit Mehta Must Be Reconsidered For Major General Against 1992 Batch On 2023 Benchmark: Delhi HC Upholds AFT Order

Brig Rohit Mehta, a 1992-batch General Cadre officer, was considered for promotion to Major General with his batch in April 2023 but was not empanelled.

The Armed Forces Tribunal had expunged one of the two challenged CRs for the period 07/2019–02/2020; that decision attained finality.

After implementing the expunction, the Army considered him as a Special Review (Fresh) case with the next physically available batch in April 2024, but he was not empanelled.

In March 2025, the Central Government granted further redress by expunging the SRO’s assessment in two earlier CRs.

He was again considered as a Special Review (Fresh) case, this time with a later batch, and was not empanelled.

The Tribunal directed that he be reconsidered with his original 1992 batch, on the parameters applied in April 2023. The Union of India challenged that direction.

The Court considered Article 14 of the Constitution and the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in promotion consideration.

Paragraphs 21–22 of the 2017 Promotion Policy and paragraph 14 of the Comprehensive Promotion Policy, 2023 generally provide for Special Review cases to be considered with the next physically available fresh batch.

However, applying Union of India v. Major General Manomoy Ganguly, (2018) 1 SCC 552, the Court held that a review selection is an extension of the original selection and must use the same parameters as the original Board, with the officer’s corrected profile.

It also relied on Maj Gen V.K. Singh v. Union of India and Maj Gen Vinayak Saini v. Union of India, concluding that redressal must be effective and that a Special Review (Fresh) case arising from correction of an earlier wrong must be assessed against the officer’s original batch and on the original benchmark.

The Court reasoned that the Respondent’s April 2023 consideration took place before the later redressal and therefore proceeded on a profile that was subsequently altered by expunction of CR assessments.

Comparing him with later batches would change the comparative field and benchmark, potentially depriving him of the practical benefit of the redressal.

Although the promotion policies ordinarily require Special Review cases to be considered with the next available batch, the Court held that they could not be applied to produce retrospective prejudice or defeat effective relief.

It treated the precedents as establishing that a corrected profile must be assessed as if it had been before the original Selection Board, and rejected the Union’s factual distinctions.

It dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal’s judgment and review order.

The Selection Board was directed, if possible, to meet before the Respondent’s superannuation on 31 October 2026; otherwise, the reconsideration was to be completed within six weeks, and superannuation was not to prevent consideration.