Inconsistency between an officer’s numerical grading and their overall profile warrants expunction of the assessment.

The Respondent, a Brigadier in the Army Medical Corps (AMC) commissioned in 1989, was denied promotion to Major General by Promotion Boards in 2022 and 2023

He filed statutory complaints against his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).

In a partial redressal on 09.08.2023, the Central Government expunged the assessments of the Reporting Officer (RO) and First Technical Officer (FTO) for his 2019 ACR on grounds of "inconsistency".

Despite this, a Review Promotion Board again labeled him "Not Selected".

The Respondent challenged this before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), alleging that the Initiating Officer's (IO) grading of 8.60 in the same 2019 ACR remained inconsistent with his overall "Exceptionally Outstanding" profile.

The AFT allowed the plea, setting aside the IO's assessment.

The Union of India subsequently challenged the AFT order via this writ petition.

1. Whether the AFT was justified in setting aside the Initiating Officer’s (IO) grading in the 2019 ACR on the grounds of inconsistency with the officer’s overall professional profile.

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, should interfere with the AFT's findings regarding the subjective professional assessment of a superior officer.

The court applied the principle of judicial review concerning administrative discretion in military promotions and ACR gradings.

It focused on the doctrine of "inconsistency" in service law, where a specific grading may be struck down if it does not align with the officer's "vertical and horizontal continuum" of past performance.

The court further observed the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noting that while it cannot sit as an appellate authority over professional discretion, it can intervene if the lower tribunal’s conclusion is not "perverse" and is based on a factual mismatch between a pen-picture and numerical grading.

The Court examined the 2019 ACR and noted that while the IO’s pen-picture described the Respondent as an "efficient officer" with "quality organisational capability," the numerical grading provided was 8.60.

The Court compared this against the Respondent's 2018 profile and subsequent gradings, which were significantly higher (ranging from "Near Exceptionally Outstanding" to "Exceptionally Outstanding").

The Court reasoned that since the Central Government had already expunged the RO and FTO’s gradings of 8.50 for the same period as "inconsistent," the IO’s grading of 8.60 suffered from the same infirmity.

It rejected the Petitioners' argument that 8.60 is a "high and positive" grade, holding that in the competitive context of military promotions, a grade that falls below an officer's established performance trend without justification is legally inconsistent.

It held that the AFT’s decision to expunge the IO’s assessment was not perverse as there was a clear factual basis for finding the 8.60 grading inconsistent with the Respondent’s overall profile.

The Court directed that the Respondent be afforded a Special Promotion Board (AFMS) based on his revised profile as originally ordered by the Tribunal.