Consistency in Confidential Reports: Significant downward deviations without justification constitute an aberration warranting judicial interference

The Respondent, commissioned in the Military Nursing Service (MNS) in 1987, was denied promotion to the rank of Brigadier following two Promotion Boards in 2023.

She challenged her non-empanelment before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), specifically contesting an Interim Confidential Report (CR) for the period 01.01.2020 to 12.09.2020.

The AFT found that while her usual gradings were above 8.80, this specific Interim CR dropped to 8.62, which it termed a "clear aberration".

The AFT set aside the CR on the grounds of inconsistency and ordered a Special Review Board.

The Union of India (Petitioners) filed this writ petition challenging the AFT’s interference with the merits of a service evaluation.

1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, can interfere with findings of fact and merits of service assessments made by a specialized Tribunal.

2. Whether the marked deviation in the Respondent’s CR (8.62 versus consistent 8.80+) constituted a justifiable ground for judicial interference.

The court primarily applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the High Court does not sit as a court of appeal over Tribunals.

It relied on the precedent established in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1963), which dictates that a writ of certiorari is for correcting errors of jurisdiction, patent illegality, or violations of natural justice, rather than for re-appreciating evidence or substituting the Tribunal's view with another plausible view.

The Court analyzed the scope of its jurisdiction, noting that judicial review is limited to the decision-making process rather than the correctness of the decision itself.

In examining the AFT’s reasoning, the Court observed that the Tribunal had identified a specific organizational constraint: the absence of an Initiating Officer (IO) during the 2020 period.

The Court noted that the Respondent's gradings prior to and after the contested period (2021-2023) consistently ranged between 8.90 and 9.00.

Consequently, the Court found that the AFT’s determination—that the sudden drop to 8.62 was an "inconsistency" and a "clear aberration"—was a well-reasoned and plausible view based on the service record.

Since the AFT’s order did not suffer from perversity or lack of jurisdiction, the Court held that interference was unwarranted.

The Court affirmed that it would not substitute its view for that of the specialized Tribunal in the absence of patent illegality.

The status of the Respondent's retirement order remains subject to the outcome of the Special Review Board as directed by the Tribunal.