High Court cannot exercise judicial review as an appeal in disguise to challenge technical validity of CRs.

The Petitioner, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army, challenged an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) which dismissed his plea to expunge his Confidential Reports (CRs) for 2010 and 2011

The Petitioner contended that the 2010 CRs were technically invalid because they incorrectly designated him as 'Company Commander'—a post allegedly reserved for higher ranks—and that he was attending a course during part of that period

Regarding the 2011 CR, he argued it was an invalid "one-man report" and lacked the mandatory 90 days of physical service

The Petitioner claimed these invalid CRs led to his non-empanelment for promotion to Colonel in 2018 and subsequent reviews

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of a statutory appeal to the Supreme Court under the AFT Act

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an AFT order given the statutory appeal route under Section 30 of the AFT Act

2. Whether the CRs for the periods 2010 and 2011 were technically invalid due to incorrect appointment entries or lack of requisite physical service

3. Whether the Court can interfere with the Selection Board’s decision regarding non-empanelment for promotion

Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the "basic structure" and cannot be ousted by statute, as affirmed in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Union of India v. Parashotam Dass

While the High Court has jurisdiction, it must exercise restraint and not act as an "appeal in disguise"

Merit assessment and CR evaluations are the domain of expert bodies, and courts should only interfere in cases of manifest arbitrariness or mala fides

Army Order 45/2001/MS concerning CR initiation and physical service requirements

The Court first resolved the maintainability issue, holding that since the case involved personal service grievances and not a "point of law of general public importance," the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction was restricted, making the High Court the appropriate forum for judicial review

On merits, the Court found that the Petitioner had personally authenticated and signed the CR forms and "Paramount Cards" which listed his appointment as Company Commander; he raised no objections for nearly eight years until he was denied promotion

The Court noted that under MS Branch policy, the responsibility for data accuracy lies with the "Ratee" (the Petitioner)

Regarding the 2011 CR, the Court accepted the Respondents' clarification that the 90-day physical service requirement need not be continuous but can be accumulated

The Court further held that a "one-man report" is not per se invalid as the SRO's endorsement is directory, not mandatory, under Army Order 45/2001/MS

The technical challenges to the CRs were belated and contradicted by the Petitioner’s own prior certifications

In the absence of evidence of forgery or mala fides, the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Selection Board or the specialized Tribunal

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the AFT’s decision was plausible and free from perversity