Holding

Seniority of officers permanently seconded to DGQA is to be determined according to Government O.M. No.21(4)/92/D (inspection), not by para 68 of the Army Regulations, and the High Court's decision is affirmed.

Summary

The appellant, a Major General commissioned in 1968, claimed seniority over a respondent officer who was senior to him in the substantive rank of Major, arguing that accelerated promotions and grading under para 68 of the Army Regulations gave him seniority. The dispute centered on officers permanently seconded to the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), where seniority is governed by Government Office Memorandum No.21(4)/92/D (inspection) dated 04.05.1993, as amended on 22.12.1993. The High Court held that the appellant remained junior to the respondent in the substantive rank of Major and that para 68 does not determine seniority for DGQA officers. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that seniority must follow the specific O.M. and that the Union of India may correct seniority errors once discovered. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether seniority of officers permanently seconded to DGQA should be determined by Government O.M. No.21(4)/92/D rather than by para 68 of the Army Regulations, 1962.
Whether para 68 of the Army Regulations can be applied as a general rule for determining seniority of DGQA officers.
Whether accelerated promotion or grading (A‑grade) affects seniority in the context of DGQA permanent secondment.
Whether the Union of India has the authority to rectify seniority mistakes after they come to its knowledge.

Subjects

senioritypermanent secondmentDGQAArmy Regulationspara 68Office Memorandumpromotion gradingservice lawarmed forces

Judgment

A MAJOR GENERAL R.S. BAL YAN
v.
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 31, 2006
B

[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.]

Service Law:
c Armed Forces-Seniority, determination of-Permanent Secondment of
Service Officers in Directorate General of Quality Assurance-Applicability
of Office Memorandum or Para 68 of the Regulations-High Court holding
appellant junior to respondent in the seniority list-On appeal, held: Seniority
is to be determined according to Government Orders and not by Para 68-
D As per the OM, officers permanently seconded to DGQA shall be included in
Cadre Seniority List of Permanently Seconded Service Officers as per their
date of seniority as substantive Major-At the time of permanent secondment
to DGQA appellant was junior to respondent in the substantive rank of
Major-Para 68 ·deals with the effective date of substantive promotion and
E as such does not qualify as a general rule for determining seniority-
Appeilant-junior officer being promoted prior to respondent-senior officer
due to availability of the vacancy in his discipline, does not make the junior
officer senior-Further, Government is competent to correct the mistake of
ranking appellant senior to respondent, on coming to know about the same-
Thus, order of High Court correct-Office Memorandum No.21(4)1921
F D(inspection), Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 04.05.1993-
Regulations for the Army, 1962 Para 68.

Appellant was commissioned in the Armament discipline on 09.06.1968
whereas respondent No.5 was commissioned in the Engineering discipline on
25.12.1966. In common seniority fist respondent No. 5 was senior to appellant.
G Appellant was promoted to the rank of Substantive Major on 09.06.1981 and
the respondent No.5 was promoted to the rank of Substantive Major on
25.12.1979 in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA). In the
Gradation list of 1988, appellant was at SI. No. 49 whereas respondent No.5
was at SI. No.45. Appellant superseded three officers senior to him in
H 894
~IAJORGEN. RS. BAL YAN, . SECTY. ~llNISTRY OFDEF, GO\'T. Oc INDl.A 895

Armament discipline and gained seniority over 16 officers of other disciplines, A
including respondent No. 5 who was senior to in the Gradation List dated
20.07.1998 in respect of service officers permanently seconded to DGQA
organization. As the appellant was given 'A' Grade, he got accelerated
promotion to the available vacancy in the Armament discipline as Brigadier
on 07.11.2000. Respondent No.S was promoted as Brigadier only on
11 .02.2002. Thereafter, appellant was considered for promotion as Major B
General and was given the substantive rank of Major General w.e.f25.0S.2002
in accordance with para 68 of the Regulations forthe Army, 1962. Respondent
No. 5 was granted substantive rank of Major General w.e.f 1.10.2004.
•
In 2004, seniority list was published and it was only then the officers C
adversely affected became aware about the wrong conferment of seniority to

-
the appellant. Respondent and other 15 senior officers were never considered
for promotion with appellant at the time of granting substantive rank of
Brigadier to him and later on as Major General. The affected officers objected
the same. On review of seniority it was found that one higher rank had been
conferred on the appellant. Appellant was given substantive rank of Brigadier D
w.e.f. 05.04.2002 and he was considered for further promotion to the rank of
Major General along with eight other officers. Respondent No.5 was conferred
seniority w.e.f. 01.10.2004 and appellant w.e.f. 01.03.2005 as Major Generals.
Respondent-authorities issued a revised seniority list whereby the appellant
was demoted and was made junior to the respondent No. 5. Appellant filed E
Writ Petition. High Court dismissed the same holding that the appellant was
junior to respondent No. 5 in the substantive rank of Major, therefore, his
claim for seniority over respondent No.5 cannot be sustained. Hence, the
present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court F
HELD: I. 1 In the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA),
officers due for promotion, who may not be from the same batch, are
considered within their disciplines only and promoted as per their inter se
seniority in the substantive rank of Major as has been laid down in 0. M.
No.21(4)/92ffi (inspection), Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated G
04.05.1993. As per the said O.M., it was decided by the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, D.D.P.S., that the criteria as contained in the said 0.M.
should be adopted for permanent secondment of the officers of the rank of Lt.
Colonel (including Lt. Col.ITS) and Majors. Clause 2 of the Memorandum
emphasizes that final orders for Permanent Secondment shall be issued only H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A after the selected officers' willingness has been obtained in writing. The
officers once permanently seconded will continue in the organization till their
retirement and shall be included in the Cadre Seniority List of Permanently
Seconded Service Officers as per their dates of seniority as substantive Major,
as modified based on the penalties/loss of seniority in the parent Corps and
shall come up for consideration for promotion to higher ranks based on
B availability of vacancies in respective disciplines. In the teeth of this specific
criteria on laid down in the above OM, letter No. 30386/MS/(X) Army
Headquarters, dated 09.03.1965 dealing with the subject of system of grading
officers belonging to regular Army only (excluding MC, Dental Corps and
those permanently transferred to RD and P/I organization) for promotion to
c the rank of Lt. Col. and above has no application to the Army Officers
permanent seconded to the DGQA organization. Para 2 of O.M. dated
04.05.1993 is self-explanatory. It is applicable throughout the service career
of an officer from the time of his permanent secondment to the DGQA
organization till retirement of the officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the High Court has gravely erred in not applying the policy instructions dated
·-
D 09.03.1965. [902-B-HI

1.2 Para 68 of the Regulations for the Army deals with the effective
f
date of substantive promotion; It does not deal with the grant of seniority.
Appellant was promoted to the acting rank of Brigadier on 07.I 1.2000 in the
Armament discipline to which he belonged because of the availability of the
E vacancy in the said discipline, whereas respondent No. 5 was promoted to such
rank in the Engineering discipline on 11.02.2002 on the then availability of
the vacancy in that discipline. However, the appellant being junior in the
substantive rank of Colonel as per seniority list as on 30.06.I 998, continued
to remain junior to respondent No. 5 in the substantive rank. The prior
F promotion of the appellant to the acting rank of Brigadier in contrast to
respondent. No. 5 in his respective discipline does not make the appellant
senior to respondent No. 5 since the substantive rank of Brigadier was granted ~

to the appellant w.e.f. 01.03.2005 and to the respondent No. 5 w.e.f. 01.10.2004
in terms of Para 2 of the Govt. of India O.M. No. 21(4)/92/D(inspection) dated
04.05.1993 as amended vide O.M. No. 21(4)/92/D(inspection) dated 22.12.1993.
G Further, the appellant has not placed on record any proof to substantiate his
claim that he was granted accelerated promotions to the ranks of Brigadier
and Major General. [903-A-DI
'-
-
1.3 Jligh Court has rightly observed that Para 68 of the Army

H Regulations does not qualify as a general rule for determining the seniority. . ~
MAJOR GEN R.S. BAL YAN 1·. SECT\". MINISTRY OF DEF., GO\T OF INDIA
897
• It simply says that if an officer is fit for promotion to the rank of Colonel and A
above on a particular date but assumes office later, then for purposes of
seniority it will be the date when the officer was found fit and notified in the
Gazette, which shall be the relevant date for counting seniority
notwithstanding the assumption of office on a later date. High Court has rightly
concluded that the seniority of the appellant and respondent No. 5 is to be
determined in terms of Para 2 of the Govt. of India O.M. No. 21(4)/92/D B
(inspection) dated 04.05.1993 as amended vide O.M. No. 21(4)/92/D
(inspection) dated 22.12.1993 and not on the basis of the interpretation of the
• impact of Para 68 of the Army Regulations. Union of India is competent to
correct the mistake of ranking the appellant senior to respondent No.5 in
the substantive rank of Brigadier when such mistake or irregularity has c
.. come to its knowledge through representation having been made by the affectro
Army Officers in 2004. Therefore, there is no infirmity or perversity in the
order of the High Court. (903-E-H; 904-AI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4619 of2006.
D
From the Final Order dated 29.5.2006 of the High Court of Delhi in
C.W.P. No. 5214/2005.

U.U. Lalit, Col. A.S. Chauhan, Bikas Kar Gupta and V. Sivasubramanian
for the Appellant.
E
Vikas Singh A.S.G., S. Wasim A. Qadri, D.S. Mehra, Anil Katiyar, Col.
G.K. Shanna, Pawan Kumar Bahl, Raj iv Shanna and Goodwill lndeevar for the ·
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. Leave granted.

The challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the final judgment
and order dated 29.05.2006 of the High Court of Delhi, whereby the Writ
Petition No.5214/2005 filed by Maj. Gen. R. S. Balyan-appellant herein came
to be dismissed. By the order coming under challenge, the High Court held G
that seniority of the appellant and Maj. Gen. Rakesh Puri (Respondent No.5)
and Maj. Gen. P.K. Mago (Respondent No.6) ought to be detennined according
to Para 2 of the Government of India O.M. No.2(4)/92/D(lnspection) dated
04.05.1993, as amended vide 0. M. No.21(4)/92/D(lnspection) dated 22. 12.1993
~II\. • and not by Para 68 of the Regulations for the Anny, 1962 (revised edition
H
4
898 SUPREfvlE COURT REPORTS 12006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A 1987).
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.

The appellant was commissioned in the Anny on 09.06.1968 whereas the
Respondent No.5 was commissioned in the Corps of Engineering on 25.12.1966
B as Second Lieutenants. In the common seniority list of Second Lieutenants,
respondent No.5 was senior to the appellant. The appellant was promoted to
the rank of Substantive Major on 09.06.1981 and the respondent No.5 was
promoted to the rank of Substantive Major on 25.12.1979 in the Directorate ,
General of Quality Assurance (DGQA). The DGQA has following four
disciplines:
c
(I) Annament
(2)
(3)
(4)
Vehicle & Engineering
Electronics
Stores
-
D
The appellant joined the Annament discipline while the respondent
joined the Vehicle & Engineering discipline. The name of the appellant was
at SI. No. 49 in the Gradation list of 1988 whereas the name of respondent No.5
was at SI. No.45 being senior to the appellant. The appellant superseded three
E officers who were senior to him in Armament discipline, whose names were
held at SI. Nos. 28, 38 and 46. According to the appellant, an officer who gets
-~'.
'A' Grade (Outstanding) would get accelerated and out-of-turn promotion
over his seniors who got only 'B' Grade. If only one vacancy is available, the
officer who gets 'A' Grade alone would be promoted ignoring his seniors who ..
get only 'B' Grade. As the appellant was given 'A' Grade, he got accelerated
F promotion to the available vacancy in the Armament discipline as Brigadier
on 07.11.2000 but the respondent No. 5, who got only 'B' Grade, could not
be promoted to the rank of Brigadier for want of vacancy in his discipline and
he was promoted as Brigadier only on 11.02.2000. The appellant was again
considered for promotion as Major General and he was given the substantive
G rank of Major General w.e.f. 25.05.2002 in accordance with para 68 of the
Regulations for the Anny, 1962. The respondent No. 5 was granted substantive
rank of Brigadier w.e.f. 11.2.2002 and substantive rank of Major General w.e.f
1.10.2004.

After 1998, seniority in the DGQA had never been published, accordingly ,. ' \ .
··•H the other officers, who were adversely affected by the wrong conferment of
MAJORGfoN. RS. BAL YAN" SECTY., ~llNISTRY OF DEF .. GOVT. OF INDIA [LOKESHWAR SINGH J>ANTA. J[ 899

seniority to the appellant, were not aware as to how the same had been done. A
It was only on 18.08.2004 when the seniority list was published that the
officers adversely affected became aware about the wrong conferment of
seniority to the appellant. Major General S. C, Gulati made a representation
objecting to the placement of the appellant in the seniority list contrary to the
instructions governing the DGQA. At that stage, a complete review of seniority B
within the DGQA was carried out and in such review, it was decided that the
appellant should be given substantive rank of Brigadier w.e.f. 05.04.2002 and
that on that basis he was considered for further promotion to the rank of
Major General along with eight other officers viz,, Brig. R. Khosla, Brig. M.
Kashyap, Brig. R. Puri (respondent No. 5), Brig. T.S. Rao, Brig. P. K. Mago
(respondent No. 6), Brig. BY Murthy, Brig. K.P. Sinha and Brig. J. D. Sapatnekar. C
In the said consideration, the appellant is given 'B' grading, i.e. "fit for

- promotion", which is the same grade as was given to respondent Nos. 5 and
6 respectively. On the basis of the assessment of the grading of the appellant
and respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the Board conferred seniority to respondent
No.5 w.e.f. OLI0.2004, respondent No.6 w.e.f. 3 LOl.2005 and the appellant
w.e.f. 01.03.2005 respectively as Major Generals. The respondent-authorities D
issued a revised seniority list dated 16.03.2005 whereby the appellant was
.. demoted as a Brigadier and was made junior to the respondent No. 5.

The appellant filed the aboves-said Writ Petition in the High Court of
Delhi which came to be decided on 29.05.2006 holding that the appellant was E
junior to respondent No. 5 in the substantive rank of Major, therefore, his
claim for seniority over respondent No.5 founded merely on the Gazette
Notification cannot be sustained in view of the interpretation put by the Court
on the respective effects of Para 68 and O.M. dated 04.05.1993 as amended
by 0. M. dated 22.12.1993. The Division Bench further said, "Since both the
petitioner and the respondent No.5 were slated for retirement by the end of F
June 2006, the plea for promotion to the rank of Lt. General in accordance with
this judgment should be considered expeditiously and not later than 20th
June, 2006. Even if there is any procedural delay in considering the case of
the petitioner and respondents No. 5 and 6 in accordance with the law laid
down by this judgment, then notwithstanding the fact that any of the G
protagonists retires in the meanwhile, the consideration for the post of Lt.
General shall be done and if any candidate is found fit for promotion, such
promotion shall be granted with effect from Ist June, 2006." Consequently, the
Writ Petition was dismissed and stood disposed of accordingly.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of the H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance
examined the entire material on record.

Mr. V. Sivasubramanian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
B appellant, contended the following three-fold submissions.
(I) The appellant had superseded respondent Nos. 5 and 6 due to
the appellant having been graded 'A' twice by the two QASBs
in the years 2000 and 2002, even though at the time of their 1
permanent secondment in the DGQA, the appellant as well as
c the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were inducted with their original
seniority in the Army;
(2) When the appellant was promoted as Major General on 30.01.2002
he superseded other Brigadiers, who were senior to respondent
No. 5, who was still only a Colonel; and
-
D (3) The High Court has erred in ignoring the applicability and
consideration of the Army Headquarters' letter dated 09.03.1965
where a limited protection is given to an officer who is senior
in the lower rank, but who could not be promoted because of
want of vacancy in his discipline while his junior was given
E promotion who was fortunate to have a vacancy in his discipline
in the higher rank. The appellant was given promotion to the
rank of Major in his own discipline over and above the respondent
No.5, who was in other discipline on the basis of his grading 'A',
the appellant's promotion as substantive Brigadier as notified by
the Gazette Notification dated 18.05.200 I and subsequent
F substantive Major General notified by the Gazette Notification
dated 03.01.2004, could not be cancelled by the respondent-
authorities without consulting the Appointments Committee of
the Cabinet and issuing notice to the appellant as per Par<. 68
of the Regulations of the Army.
G Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended
that the appellant erroneously was given seniority over 16 other officers
holding the rank of Brigadiers belonging to other disciplines including
respondent No.5, who was at SI. No. 45 whereas the appellant was at SI. No.49
in the Gradation List of 1998. They stated that the appellant could not claim
H accelerated promotion to place him above respondent No.5, who admittedly
MAJOR GEN. R.S. BAL YAN•·. SECTY, MINISTRY OF DEF .. GOVT OF INDIA [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA. J] 90)

was senior as Major and was never considered for promotion along with the A
appellant in terms of policy contained in 0. M. dated 04.05.1993 (Annexure
P-4) and Gradation List of 1998 as well.

The admitted facts are that the appellant was commissioned in the
Armament discipline on 09.06.1968 whereas the respondent No.5 was
commissioned in the Engineering discipline on 25.12.1966. The consideration B
for promotion up to the rank of Brigadier as a rule was held within its own
discipline of the appellant (Armament) with officers of the same discipline, the
appellant superceded three officers whose names were held at serial Nos. 28,
38 and 46. The appellant was placed above serial No. 28 (Col. R.E. Chawan)
thereby erroneously gaining seniority over 16 officers of other disciplines, C
including Respondent No. 5 who was at serial No. 45 of the Gradation List

... dated 20.07 .1998 (Annexure R-6) in respect of service officers permanently
seconded to DGQA organization as on 30.06.1998. The respondent No. 5 and
other 15 senior officers were never considered with the appellant at the time
of granting substantive rank of Brigadier to him and later on as Major General
earlier than respondent No. 5 as his seniority was reckoned ahead of serial D
No. 28 of 1998 seniority list.

The stand of respondent - Union of India in its counter affidavit is that,
the seniority conferred upon the appellant to the substantive rank of Brigadier
was erroneous and it was only on 18.08.2004 when the seniority list was
published that officers adversely affected became aware of the wrong E
conferment of the seniority to the appellant. The respondent authorities after
1998 had never published seniority list in the DGQA. Maj. Gen. S. C. Gulati
made a representation objecting to the placement of the appellant in the
seniority list contrary to the instructions governing the DGQA organisation.
A complete review of seniority within the DGQA was carried out and in such F
review it was decided that the appellant should be given substantive rank of
Brigadier w.e.f. 05.04.2002 and that on that basis he was considered for further
promotion to the rank of Major General along with 8 other officers, namely,
Brig. R. Khosla, Brig. M. Kashyap, Brig. R. Puri (respondent No. 5), Brig. T.
S. Rao, Brig. P.K. Mago(respondent No. 6), Brig. B. V. Murthy, Brig. K. P. Sinha
and Brig. J.D. Sapatnekar. On reconsideration at the stage of complete review G
of seniority list, the appellant is given 'B' grading, i.e., "fit for promotion",
which is the same grade given to respondent Nos. 5 & 6. On the basis of the
fresh assessment, the Board conferred seniority to respondent No. 5 w.e.f.
0 I. I0.2004, respondent No. 6 w.e.f. 31.01.2005 and the appellant w.e.f. 01.03.2005
I.
as Major General. As a -result of review of seniority list, we find from the H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A record that one higher rank which had been conferred upon the appellant
earlier and which had remained unnoticed because of non-publication of
seniority list was corrected by the Union of India at the first available
opportunity when the seniority list was published on 18.08.2004 in the DGQA
cadre and when the irregularity in the seniority list was noticed by the
affected officers, who made representations against the irregularity, committed
B in the seniority list giving promotion to the appellant over and above them.
Jn DGQA organization, officers due for promotion, who may not be from the
same batch, are considered within their disciplines only and promoted as per
their inter se seniority in the substantive rank of Major as has been laid down
in 0. M. No.21(4)/92/D (inspection), Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
'
c dated 04.05.1993 (Annexure P-4) on the subject "GUIDELINES FOR
PERMANENT SECONDMENT OF SERVICE OFFICERS OF THE RANK OF
MAJOR AND LT. COL. IN THE DGQA ORGANIZATION". As per the said
O.M., it was decided by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
D.D.P.S., that the criteria as contained in the said O.M. should be adopted for
-
permanent secondment of the officers of the rank of Lt. Colonel (including Lt.
D Col.ITS) and Majors. Clause 2 of the Memorandum emphasizes that final
orders for Permanent Secondment shall be issued only after the selected ,.
officers' willingness has been obtained in writing. The officers once
permanently seconded will continue in the organization till their retirement
and shall be included in the Cadre Seniority List of Permanently Seconded
E Service Officers as per their dates of seniority as substantive Major, as •
modified based on the penalties/loss of seniority in the parent Corps and shall
come up for consideration for promotion to higher ranks based on availability
of vacancies in respective disciplines. In the teeth of this specific criteria laid
down in the above referred to Memorandum, we are of the view that letter
No. 30386/MS/(X) Army Headquarters, dated 09.03.1965 (Annexure P-1) dealing
F with the subject of system of grading officers (excluding MC, Dental Corps
and those permanently transferred to RD & P/I organization) for promotion
to the rank of Lt. Col. and above relief upon by the appellant has no application
in the DGQA organization. Para 2 ofO.M. dated 04.05.1993 (Annexu;e P-4) is
self-explanatory. It is applicable through out the service career of an officer
G from the time of his permanent secondment to the DGQA organization till the
retirement of the officer. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the High Court has gravely erred in not applying the policy
-
instructions dated 09.03.1965 (Annexure P-1) does not merit acceptance, as
Annexure P-1 deals with system of giving grading to officers belonging to
regular Anny only and those instructions as such have no application to the )
..._
H Army officers permanently seconded to the DGQA organization.
MAJ.OR GEN. R.S. BALYAN"· SECTY, MINISTRY OF DEF., GOVT. OF INDIA {LOKESHW AR SINGH PANTA. J] 903

Para 68 of the Regulations for the Anny deals with the effective date A
of substantive promotion. It does not deal with the grant of seniority. The
appellant was promoted to the acting rank of Brigadier on 07.11.2000 in the
Armament discipline because of the availability of the vacancy in the said
discipline, whereas the respondent No. 5 was promoted to such rank in the
Engineering discipline on 11.02.2002 on the then availability of the vacancy
in that discipline. However, the appellant being junior in the substantive rank B
of Colonel as per seniority list as on 30.06.1998, continued to remain junior
to respondent No. 5 in the substantive rank and that is why the substantive
rank of Brigadier was rightly granted to respondent No. 5 w.e.f. 01.10.2004 and
to the appellant only w.e.f. 01.03.2005, in the seniority list as on 01.03.2005
impugned before the High Court. The appellant has not placed on record any C
proof to substantiate his claim that he was granted accelerated promotions
to the ranks of Brigadier and Major General. Thus, it is clear that due to the
availability of the vacancy in the Annament discipline to which the appellant
belonged, he was promoted to the acting rank of Brigadier on 07 .11.2000,
whereas the respondent No. 5, who was in the Engineering discipline, was
promoted to the acting rank of Brigadier on 11.02.2002 due to the availability D
of the vacancy in the Engineering discipline. The prior promotion of the
J appellant to the acting rank of Brigadier in contrast to the respondent No. 5
in his respective discipline does not make the appellant senior to the respondent
No. 5 since the substantive rank of Brigadier was granted to the appellant
w.e.f. 01.03.2005 and to the respondent No. 5 w.e.f. 01.10.2004 in tenns of Para E
2 of the Govt. of India O.M. No. 21(4)/92/D(inspection) dated 04.05. I 993 as
amended vide O.M. No. 21 (4)/92/D(inspection) dated 22.12.1993.

The High Court has rightly observed that Para 68 of the Army
Regulations does not qualify as a general rule for determining the seniority.
On a plain reading of Para 68 of the Anny Regulations extracted by the High F
Court in Para 12 of the impugned judgment, it simply says that if an officer
is fit for promotion to the rank of Colonel and above on a particular date but
assumes office later, then for purposes of seniority it will be the date when
the officer was found fit and notified in the Gazette, which shall be the
relevant date for counting seniority notwithstanding the assumption of office G
on a date later than the date of assumption of office. The High Court, in our
view, has rightly concluded that the seniority of the appellant and respondent
No. 5 is to be detennined in tenns of Para 2 of the Govt. of India O.M. No.
21(4)/92/D (i~spection) dated 04.05.1993 as amended vide O.M. No. 21(4)/92/
D (inspection) dated 22. 12.1993 and not on the ba$iS of the interpretation of
the impact of Para 68 of the Anny Regulaticns as relied upon by the appellant. H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A The Union of India is competent to correct the mistake of ranking the appellant
senior to respondent No.5 in the substantive rank of Brigadier when such
mistake or irregularity has come to its knowledge through representation
having been made by the affected Army Officers in 2004.

We, therefore, find no infirmity or perversity in the order of the High
B Court impugned in this appeal. Therefore, the contentions noticed above
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained.

For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in this appeal, which
1
is dismissed accordingly. However, parties are left to bel:r their own costs.

C NJ. Appeal dismissed.

'