Delhi High Court
Col. Sandeep Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 October, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla, Amit Bansal
$~1(SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.10.2024
+ W.P.(C) 7541/2023
COL. SANDEEP SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.C. Mittal and Mr.S.S.
Pandey, Advs. (through VC)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Harish Vaidyanathan
Shankar, CGSC with Mr.Srish
Kumar Mishra, Mr.Alexander
Mathai Paikaday, Advs. with
Col. Sarika, MS Legal and
Major Anish Muralidhar, OIC
Legal.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. For reasons stated in the application, the delay of 45 days in
filing of the present review petition is condoned.
2. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
3. This petition has been filed by the respondents seeking review
of the Judgment dated 28.05.2024, primarily being aggrieved of the
findings of this Court in paragraph no.108 of the Judgment, wherein
this Court has recorded as under:
"...Though, the case of the petitioner is that he
should have been considered for promotion to
the post of Brigadier in October 2012, i.e.,
immediately when he was declared fit by
SRMB, it may be stated here that the petitioner
had not approached any forum seeking
promotion immediately thereafter. Therefore,
it is too late in the day for the petitioner to
seek promotion w.e.f. 2012...."
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner could have been promoted to the post of Brigadier only in
the month of December 2019, therefore, the submission of petitioner
recorded in the aforesaid paragraph is incorrect.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who appears on advance
notice, fairly does not object to this correction being made in the
Judgment.
6. Accordingly, the above-quoted portion shall stand deleted from
the Judgment dated 28.05.2024 being not relevant for the
consideration thereof.
7. The respondents/review petitioners further contend that for
promotion from the post of Colonel to Brigadier and to be considered
by Number 2 Selection Board, an officer is also required to meet the
requirements as stipulated in paragraph no.16 of the 'Adequately
Exercised (AE) Policy for consideration of officers by Number 2,
Number 1 and Special Selection Boards' dated 20.05.2013 as
amended by 'Adequately Exercised (AE) Policy for consideration of
officers by Number 2, Number 1 and Special Selection Boards' dated
02.04.2013.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents/review petitioners
submits that the petitioner does not meet the above criteria for being
considered for promotion to the post of Brigadier. The learned counsel
for the review petitioners submits that, therefore, the petitioner cannot
be considered for the said post.
9. We do not find any merit in the said contention.
10. In the Judgment dated 28.05.2024, this Court has already held
that the fact remains that the disciplinary proceedings against the
respondents were dropped by the respondents for being time barred,
and even the administrative action was dropped being in violation of
Rules 180 and 182 of the Army Rules, 1954, therefore, the petitioner
has to be considered for promotion to the post of Brigadier as if there
was/is no impediment for such consideration. These impediments
would also include the requirements as stipulated in the policies
mentioned hereinabove as it is due to the own fault of the review
petitioners that the Writ Petitioner could not meet the criteria as laid
down in the above mentioned policy documents.
11. We therefore, find no merit in the above challenge of the review
petitioners.
12. However, we clarify that the above findings are rendered in the
peculiar facts of the present case, and the present Order shall not be
considered as a precedent.
13. With these clarifications, we dispose of the present review
petition.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
OCTOBER 4, 2024/ns/VS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
