Arbitrary reduction in the rank of military CRs without cogent justification violates procedural guidelines: Delhi HC

Background

Brigadier Gopal Mohan Atri rose through the ranks with an exemplary service record. Despite this, he was twice denied nomination to the National Defense College (NDC) and was not considered for promotion to the rank of major general. The denial was mainly attributed to three disputed CRs covering April-August 2009, July 2018-June 2019 and July 2020-February 2021. These were downgraded by his superiors, which affected his merit compared to his colleagues. Atri argued that the said grade reductions were arbitrary and unjustified and undermined his prospects despite a consistent track record of “outstanding” performance.

Arguments

Atri maintained that evaluations of military personnel, especially CRs, should be based on objectivity and consistency. Atri’s previous corporate ratings reflected “Outstanding” ratings and the downgrades in question were not adequately justified. Highlighting his accolades, including commanding the “Best Unit”, the legal counsel argued that the subjective reductions in the RO and SRO ratings in the contested CRs directly harmed Atri’s career development. Removing only partial ratings, rather than addressing all inconsistencies, further highlighted procedural irregularities committed by respondents. Atri sought a full review and annulment of the ratings affecting its CR during these periods.

On behalf of the Union, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar of CGSC argued that the petitioner’s marks were independently assessed by the IO, RO and SRO. Everyone contributed an unbiased assessment of Atri’s performance. He argued that the High Court should refrain from acting as an appellate body in military matters (unless there had been a clear breach of the rules or bias had been demonstrated). Therefore, they argued, Atri’s denial of promotion and nomination to the NDC was due to his comparative ranking and not to any arbitrariness.

The Court’s reasoning

First, the court reviewed the CRs of April and August 2009. The Court found that its powers of judicial review did not extend to reassessing Force personnel and setting aside the competent authority’s assessment of the recording of CRs; because the Court cannot step in as the competent authority. Thus, the court noted that the first impugned IR for the period April-August 2009 did not show any “inconsistency” or “subjectivity” and, therefore, it declined to interfere with the April-August 2009 IR.

Second, the court reviewed the July 2018-June 2019 CR in which the Army removed the RO box rating as subjective and inconsistent. However, respondents maintained the illustrative assessments of RO, creating a discrepancy between the overall assessment and individual assessments. According to the court, the Army’s decision to delete only the box classification, while retaining the pictorial ratings, was contradictory because the military CR guidelines require a harmonious assessment that does not combine objective and subjective criteria (para. 42). The court emphasized that if one part of the assessment is deemed arbitrary, the entire assessment should be reconsidered. Therefore, it is necessary to remove all RO ratings for this period.

Finally, for the financial statements for the period July 2020-February 2021, the court examined the internal evaluation process. CR Atri received a rating of “almost a perfect nine”, which, according to internal guidelines, resulted in a rating for “inflationary” ratings. Moreover, the petitioner’s CR was singled out for detailed internal examination due to certain “differences in assessment”. For this purpose, its average CR variability compared to the previous overall average profile was taken into account. However, other relevant factors listed in the “assessment validity” analysis guidelines were not taken into account. Therefore, the impact assessment was not carried out in line with the guidelines and only took into account one criterion as opposed to other parameters such as compliance with the pen’s image and previous achievements. As a result, the court ruled that the deletion of this CR as “inflationary” was unjustified and reinstated the original ratings provided by the IO. In this regard, the petition read as follows partially allowedand the court granted relief by setting aside certain portions of the CR at issue.

Date: 24/10/2024

Case number: WP(C) 15281/2023

The Applicant’s Representative: Mr. Arvind Kumar Nigam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manish Sangwan and Mr. Ashwani Tehlan.

Advice for Respondents: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday.

Click here to read/download the order