-
by Admin
17 December 2025 8:55 AM
“As the COAS reconsidered the case of Respondent No. 2, the case of the appellant for upgradation ought to have been considered.” - In a judgment that reinforces the principle of equal treatment within military administrative discretion, the Supreme Court of India directed the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) to reconsider the 'Z' grading assigned to a Territorial Army officer during the 2001 promotion process.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that if the COAS could exercise discretion in upgrading another candidate’s assessment, fairness demands that the appellant’s case also be reviewed with parity.
“We find that in the case of respondent No. 2, the COAS reconsidered his case. However, that was not done in the case of the appellant. In our view, as the COAS has reconsidered the case of respondent No. 2, the case of the appellant for upgradation ought to have been considered.”
Promotion Denied Despite Long Service and Clean Record—Appellant Challenged Selection Board Grading
Lt. Col. N.K. Ghai, who was commissioned into the Territorial Army in 1978, rose through the ranks and reached Selection Grade Lieutenant Colonel in 1996. He was considered for promotion to Colonel by the No. 3 Selection Board on five occasions between 2000 and 2003 but was consistently graded ‘Z’—unfit for promotion at present.
Despite possessing what he claimed were consistent above-average or excellent ACRs, he was denied promotion. In contrast, another officer (Respondent No. 2) was similarly graded ‘Z’ in 2001 but had his grading upgraded to ‘B’ (fit for promotion) by the COAS, ultimately securing promotion.
The Court noted: “The gradings to be awarded for promotion to the selective ranks are A, B, Z, D and W… In all five proceedings, the gradation of the appellant was ‘Z’.”
“In the June 2001 process, respondent No. 2 was given ‘Z’, but the COAS upgraded it to ‘B’—the competent authority has such discretion under Para 108 of DSR, 1987.”
Supreme Court Finds Disparity in Exercise of Discretion—Demands Parity and Procedural Fairness
The Court critically examined the procedural records and confidential selection board proceedings (submitted in sealed cover) and concluded that the exercise of discretion by the Army Chief cannot be selective: “As the COAS has reconsidered the case of respondent No. 2, the case of the appellant for upgradation ought to have been considered.”
While the Court did not disturb the Tribunal's conclusion entirely, it held that failing to review the appellant’s case when a similarly situated officer’s case was reconsidered violates the principle of administrative fairness.
The Court thus directed: “We direct that in the selection process of June 2001, the case of the appellant for upgradation from category ‘Z’ shall be considered by the COAS… An appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of three months from today.”
If Grading Is Upgraded, Consequential Benefits Must Follow—Court’s Order Partially Allows Appeal
The Court left open the door for notional promotion and service benefits if the reconsideration yields a favorable result:
“If, ultimately, grading ‘Z’ is upgraded, the case of the appellant for grant of notional promotion shall be considered along with consequential benefits.”
In doing so, the Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order only to the extent of mandating reconsideration of the grading.
This decision is a notable reaffirmation of procedural equity in service law, especially within the armed forces where discretionary power must be exercised uniformly and transparently. The Supreme Court has clarified that subjective grading systems cannot escape judicial scrutiny where manifest inequality in treatment is shown.
“No other modification can be made to the impugned judgment. But the case of the appellant deserves reconsideration to uphold fairness.”
Date of Decision: 21 May 2025
