Kerala High Court
Ss 39695 K Maj Ranjit H.S (Retd) vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 33233 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2023 IN OA NO.158 OF
2019 OF ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL,REGIONAL BENCH,KOCHI
PETITIONER/S:
SS 39695 K MAJ RANJIT H.S (RETD),
AGED 45 YEARS
74/882 E(4), RP VIHAR, NEAR DON BOSCO SCHOOL,
VADUTHALA P.O, KERALA., PIN - 682023
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VINAY KUMAR VARMA
SHRI.N.K.KARNIS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
2 CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF
IHQ OF MOD (ARMY), SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110011
3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL MILITARY TRAINING
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF MILITARY TRAINING,
INTEGRATED HQ OFMOD (ARMY), DHQ PO, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110011
BY ADV SHRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.33233 of 2024
2
2025:KER:52008
AMIT RAWAL & P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C)No.33233 of 2024
........................................................
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V. Balakrishnan, J.
This writ petition is filed by the applicant in OA No.158 of 2019 on the files of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi challenging the order dated 15.09.2023, dismissing his application.
2. The applicant is an ex Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army. He was commissioned as Lieutenant and retired as Major on 01.03.2016, after completing 14 years of service. In the promotion examination Part D 2015, the answer sheet of the applicant for the subject 'Military History' was not evaluated properly leading to his failure in the subject. The applicant was declared to have scored 168 marks out of a total of 500 whereas, a minimum of 200 marks was required to pass the examination. According to the applicant, the result of his failure was due to linking of the answer sheet evaluation with his Annual Confidential Report (herein after referred to as ACR for short). The applicant was thus denied promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, which is a time scale promotion. It is in such W.P.(C)No.33233 of 2024 3 2025:KER:52008 circumstances, the applicant approached the tribunal seeking a direction to revalue the answer book of Military History paper, Part D examination 2015, with a different set of examiners and in the event of securing pass marks, grant benefits of the rank of a Lieutenant Colonel.
3. The tribunal, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the application.
4. Heard Adv.Vinay Kumar Varma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.K.R. Rajkumar, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not awarded the pass mark for the paper Military History since, the Board of Officers evaluating the answer book had considered his ACR marks and has linked the same to the evaluation process of the paper. He argued that the said fact has been admitted by the respondents before the Central Information Commissioner and the Delhi High Court. He also argued that the tribunal itself has found that the answers in the answer book of the applicant have been marginally under assessed. Hence, he prayed that the revaluation of the paper may be ordered.
6. Per contra, the learned Senior Panel Counsel W.P.(C)No.33233 of 2024 4 2025:KER:52008 supported the impuged order and submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He argued that the ACRs are not considered while evaluating the answer sheets and the evaluation is based only on the answers submitted by the candidate in the answer book. He contended that the tribunal, after scrutiny of the answer book of the applicant, has categorically found that there is only a marginal under assessment and the same will not in any manner help the applicant in securing the minimum pass marks.
7. The first contention of the applicant is that the Board of Officers, while evaluating the answer sheets, have considered the ACR marks awarded to the applicant, and it is due to this extraneous consideration, the applicant has been awarded low marks in the paper. The respondents have specifically denied this contention and stated that ACRs are not considered while evaluating answer sheets and the evaluation is based only on the answers submitted by the candidate in the answer book. It is to be seen that as per Annexure A9 and Ext.R3, the respondents have specifically stated and intimated the applicant that the ACRs are not considered while evaluating the answer sheets and that the evaluation is based solely on the basis of the answers given by the candidate. Merely on the basis of a stray statement W.P.(C)No.33233 of 2024 5 2025:KER:52008 made before the CIC that evaluation of the promotion exams involves the basis of ACRs of concerned officers as well, it cannot be accepted that ACRs were taken as basis for evaluating the answer sheets. This is especially so, considering the fact that in the writ petition, the respondents have further stated that the afore contention has not been accepted by the CIC and also the fact that in the reply filed by the respondents to the O.A. they have explained the same by stating that ACR's form part of overall system of promotion and are mandatory inputs for promotion of officers for select ranks. As rightly found by the Tribunal, this only means that in addition to having passed promotion exam, the ACR's of the officer will also be considered for promotion. Further it is beyond comprehension that, the examiners would have gone through nearly 4747 ACRs of the officers who have participated in the examination, while evaluating the answer sheets.
8. Coming to the contention of the alleged under assessment of a few answers, it is to be seen that the tribunal has, on a careful scrutiny of the answer book of the applicant, found that the under evaluation of these answers is very marginal and will not in any manner help the applicant to score the minimum pass mark required. Moreover, it is also pertinent W.P.(C)No.33233 of 2024 6 2025:KER:52008 to note that the specific case of the respondents is that the identity of the candidate is concealed by the independent Board of Officers, who dispatch the answer sheets to another independent Board of Officers for evaluation, so that the identity credential of the candidates are not known to the valuers. The applicant has no case that the afore process of valuation has, in any manner been tinkered with. If so, considering all the afore facts, we are of the view that the contentions raised by the applicant in the present writ petition has no legs to stand.
Resultantly, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Dxy W.P.(C)No.33233 of 2024 7 2025:KER:52008 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33233/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF PPO NO. M/03925/2017 DATED 11.09.2017 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPIES OF RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE STUDY MATERIAL PROVIDED TO OFFICERS BY THE MILITARY TRAINING DIRECTORATE AND QUESTION PAPER FOR MILITARY HISTORY, PART D EXAMINATION 2015.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S 2ND APPEAL TO THE CIC DATED 01.08.2016.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER DATED
27.07.2017.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF WPC 8413/2017 FILED BY
RESPONDENTS IN HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 20.09.2017
OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE
PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF MILITARY
HISTORY PAPER, PART D EXAMINATION 2015.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF ADJUNCT DECISION OF THE
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER DATED
20.09.2018
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENTS
COMMUNICATION NO. A/810027/RTI/OF_50748 DATED 11.01.2019 IN REPLY TO PETITIONER'S RTI QUERY ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2019. ANNEXURE R1 COPY OF PARA 17 OF APPX B OF SAO 2/S/85 ANNEXURE R2 COPY OF REJECTION LETTER OF RTI APPLICATION ANNEXURE R3 COPY OF REPLY TO RTI QUERY DATED 04 JAN 2019.
ANNEXURE R4 COPY OF HON'BLE AFT, NEW DELHI UOI AND MS KARUNA THAPLIYAL JUDGEMENT PASSED DATED 17 MAY 2015.
ANNEXURE R5 COPY OF REPLY FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT ON 15 MAR 2019.
ANNEXURE R6 COPY OF DGM T (MT-2) LETTER DATED 07 SEP 2018.
W.P.(C)No.33233 of 20248
2025:KER:52008 ANNEXURE R7 COPY OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RULING IN MATTER OF CBSE VS ADITYA BANDOPADHAY DATED 09 AUG 2011.
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A. 158 OF 2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE AFT, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE AFT, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER. BEFORE AFT, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO. 158 OF 2019 PASSED BY THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH KOCHI ON 15.09.2023