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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
