Col. N.K. Yadav And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 839 Del

JUDGMENT

B.A. Khan, J.

1. Petitioners are holding the rank of Colonel in the Army services. They are aggrieved of their side stepping/shifting to the posts of Director (Transport) and Director (Personnel) respectively.

2. Petitioner no.1 was posted as Director (Provisioning) by respondent no.4 on 1st February, 2005 and petitioner no.2 as Director (Contracts) by this respondent on 2nd December, 2004. By a signal dated 13th April, 2005, they had been shifted/side stepped to the post of Director (Transport) and the Director (Personnel) respectively. They questioned this action in the present petition and also challenge the validity of respondent's policy relating to 'integrity check'. They accordingly pray that this criteria of 'integrity check' be quashed and so be their side stepping/shifting from their posts. Petitioners' case is that criteria of minimum 8 in the star qualities as laid down in the 'integrity check' (criteria) is wholly perverse and contrary to the instructions contained in the ACR Form which itself mentions that grading of 7 means 'Above Average'. According to them, there is no rationale in holding an officer failing in the 'integrity check' in view of the star qualities and that too when the grade of 7 means 'Above Average'. They also admit that 'integrity check' " criteria is unconnected with the concept of integrity and is wholly arbitrary and irrational. It is also their case that side stepping/shifting was without any justification and they have already held various sensitive appointments earlier.

3. Notice of this petition was issued to respondents and they were called upon to explain the position and the circumstances in which petitioners were posted to the post of Director (Provisioning) and Director (Contracts) and have been now ordered to be side stepped/shifted.

4. Respondents have filed a detailed counter refuting the allegations of petitioners and explaining the criteria, labelled as 'integrity check' which was to be applied for posting to the posts of Director (Provisioning) and Director (Contracts). Their case is that since petitioners have failed in meeting this criteria and have not obtained 8 in star qualities, they could not be posted to the post of Director (Provisioning) and Director (Contracts) respectively which was done by respondent no.4 (Directorate General of Supply & Transport) without conducting any check under the criteria and without ensuring that the criteria was satisfied even though respondent no.3 had by communications dated 8th February, 2005 informed respondent no.4 about the petitioners failure to meet the criteria.

5. It is submitted by them that petitioners had neither been demoted nor posted to any lower rank nor had it resulted in any deduction to their pay and rank. Their perception of the 'integrity check' was misplaced and this did not mean that anything adverse had come to the notice of respondents regarding their personal traits. It is also submitted by them that petitioners wanted this Court to adjudicate on the criteria to be adopted by respondents for posting of Army Officers to these posts and which criteria provided a bench mark to be satisfied for posting to the post due to the sensitive nature of such posts. It is contended by their counsel that the criteria/policy providing for minimum 8 in the star qualities laid down cannot said to be perverse or irrational by any logic because this standard was prescribed keeping in regard the sensitive nature of the duties attached to these posts.

6. We have seen the criteria which was adopted by respondents and which is labelled 'integrity check' for Colonels & Lt. Colonels. It provides that they must have not less than 8 of the star qualities which include Drive, Determination & Decisiveness, Dependability, Moral Courage, Integrity and Loyalty. It appears to us as is conceded by learned counsel for respondent that the criteria has been labelled as 'integrity check' which requires Colonel or Lt. Colonel to obtain 8 " 'grading' on the basis of several factors. As such this is not limited to the integrity of the officer only, nor does it suggest that not satisfying this criteria of 8 impinges on the officers' integrity. This becomes clear from the respondents perception of this criteria which they have spelled out in their counter explaining that not satisfying of this criteria by petitioners does not cast aspersion on their integrity nor could it be treated as anything adverse regarding their personal traits.

7. We find it unable to hold that the criteria adopted by respondents labelled as 'integrity check' requiring a Colonel/Lt. Colonel to obtain a standard of 8 was in any way irrational or perverse. Given regard to the sensitivity of the nature of duties attached to the posts of The Directorate General of Supply & Transport of the Army Headquarters, it is within their competence to adopt a fair and reasonable criteria for appointment to these posts in the interest of administration. There is nothing to suggest that this criteria was hit or inflicted by any irrationality or perverseness or that it resulted in any prejudice or civil consequences to those officers who did not meet the standard.

8. Looked at in this perspective, we do not find anything wrong in respondent's action in side-stepping/shifting petitioners to the posts of Director (Transport) and Director (Personnel) respectively which are also located in Delhi, more so when respondents on their own have admitted that this action does not reflect on petitioners integrity or in any of their personal traits.

9. We accordingly find no scope to interfere and dismiss this petition.