Supreme Court of India
RAVINDERA SADASHIO KSHIRSAGARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 355
- Decided
- 16 March 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The promotion scheme is a valid service‑specific measure that does not violate Article 14, and the High Court's dismissal of the petition is affirmed.
Summary
The appellant, a Commander (Time Scale) in the Indian Navy, challenged a 2005 Ministry of Defence (Navy) scheme that deferred promotion to Captain (Time Scale) until all acting Commanders (Select List) were promoted or retired. He argued that the scheme would effectively deny him and similarly situated officers the opportunity for promotion, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the scheme in the context of the AVS Committee's recommendations, noting that the AVS report primarily addressed Army cadre restructuring and that each service must tailor its own implementation. The Court held that the scheme was a legitimate service‑specific measure aimed at preserving inter‑se seniority and the command‑and‑control structure of the Navy. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition, finding no violation of constitutional equality.
Issues considered
- Whether the Navy's promotion scheme dated 14.3.2005 violates Article 14 by denying or unduly deferring promotion to Commanders (Time Scale).
- Whether the scheme is a valid exercise of service‑specific requirements under the AVS Committee recommendations.
- Whether the scheme impermissibly disrupts inter‑se seniority and the command structure of the Navy.
Subjects
service lawinter se senioritypromotion schemeIndian NavyAVS CommitteeArticle 14constitutional equalitycadre stagnationdefence ministry
Judgment
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 436
A RAVINDERA SADASHIO KSHIRSAGAR
V.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 1611 of 2009
MARCH 16, 2009
B
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN
REDDY, JJ.] ,
Service law: Seniority- Inter se seniority-Armed Forces
- Ministry of Defence (Navy) made detailed scheme providing
c that for maintaining inter se seniority, Commanders (Time
Scale) and Lieutenant Commanders who were finally
superseded became eligible for promotion to Captain (Time
Scale) only after all erstwhile acting Commanders (Select List)
were promoted to Captain (Select List)!Captain (Time Scale)!
D retired - Contention that the scheme if implemented then no
Commander (Time Scale) would ever be considered for
promotion to the rank of Captain (Time Scale) for a long time
as most of them would retire before they could be considered
for promotion to the rank of Captain (Time Scale) - Held: Not
E tenable - The scheme protected the inter se seniority amongst
officers as per Navy list, which provided that Commander
(Select) and acting Commander would rank senior to
Commander (Time Scale) even if Commander (Time Scale)
has put in more years of service as Commander (Time Scale).
F The AVS Committee considered the issues of cadre
stagnation and mobility in Armed Forces and made certain
recommendations. The Army and Air Force duly promoted
all its commissioned officers who had completed 20 years
reckonable commissioned services in compliance of
G recommendation of the AVS report. Pursuant thereto, by f .
communication dated 14.3.2005, the Ministry of Defence
(Navy) made a detailed scheme providing promotions to
non-select ranks. It provided that in order to maintain
H 436
RAVINDERA SADASHIO KSHIRSAGAR V. 437
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
existing inter-se seniority, Commanders (Time Scale) and A
Lieutenant Commanders who were finally superseded
would became .eligible for promotion to Captain (Time
Scale) only after all erstwhile acting Commanders (Select
List) are promoted to Captain (Select List)/Captain (Time
Scale)/retired. B
Appellant joined Indian Navy in 1978 as a
Commissioned Officer and was serving in the rank of
Commander (Time Scale) w.e.f. 10.1.1999. Aggrieved by
the stipulations contained in the communication dated
14.3.2005, appellant an,d others made representation C
which were rejected. Thereafter appellant filed writ
petition, which was dismissed.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended for the
appellant that if the impugned Naval policy is implemented
0
then no Commander (Time Scale) could ever be
considered for promotion to the rank of Captain (Time
Scale) for a long time as most of them would retire before
they could be considered for promotion to the rank of
Captain (Time Scale).
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
+ HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that the Navy under
the garb of 'service specific requirements' rendered the
entire policy and the AVS report which was accepted by
the government of India nugatory. The AVS report itself F
makes it explicitly clear that its primary focus was on the
restructuring of the officers' cadre of the Army, while
making it applicable to the other two services including
the Navy which has to work out its service specific
.t ~ requirements including the additional vacancies. The G
Government's directive dated 11.3.2005 and the criteria
and guidelines for grant of rank of Captain (Time Scale)
dated 2.11.2005 were evolved by Integrated Headquarters,
Ministry of Defence (Navy) in the light of the observations
so made in the AVS Report. In the criteria and guidelines H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.
A so evolved it has been noticed that immediate grant of
promotion to Commanders (Time Scale) with 26 years of
commissioned service to the rank of Captain (Time Scale)
is untenable since it would have an impact on the sanctity
of the inter se seniority. The Navy Headquarter was
B conscious that the implementation by the two other
services was based on mitigating circumstances such as
their geographical dispersion and selective placement.
The Indian Navy policy is practical and based on time
tested, functional and traditional norms followed even pre-
c AVS Committee. The guidelines clarified that the new
regulations do not preclude promotion of erstwhile
graded Lt. Commanders (subsequently not placed on
select list for promotion to Captain) or as to one
Commanders (Time Scale) and Lt. Commanders (N
graded) finally superseded to the rank of Captain (Time
D
Scale), but only appropriately deferred till such time the "
provisions of para 3 (c) of the guidelines are complied with.
[Para 11] [443-G-H; 444-A-E]
2. There is no dispute about the fact that as on the
E date of communication dated 11.3.2005, there were 1300
Commanders (Select List) who were senior to the
Commanders (Time Scale). There is also no dispute that
Commander (Select List) is always by selection and the
Commander (Time Scale) is automatic on completion of
F 26 years of service subject to other requirements. The
High Court is right in coming to the conclusion that if the
communication is to be read as suggested, it would result
in all Commanders (Time Scale) though in the Navy list
are juniors to Commanders (Select List) or acting
G
Commanders (Select) have to be considered for • .
promotion to the post of Captain(Time Scale). Precisely
for that reason the Headquarter (Navy) came to the
conclusion that it would affect the command and control
structure in the Indian Navy. [Para 14) [445-E-G]
H 3. The appellant like most other Commanders would
RAVINDERA SADASHIO KSHIRSAGAR V. 439
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.. retire before they could be considered for the promotion A
to the rank of Captain (Time Scale). No Commander (Time
Scale) would be eligible for consideration till 2015 by
which time most of them would have retired. It was,
however, explained that about 420 Officers (130 erstwhile
Commanders (Time Scale) and 290 'N' graded Lt. B
Commanders (Lt. Commanders who were not select listed
for Commanders) would continue to be eligible for
.I,
promotion. It was further explained that para 3 (a) of the
Government letter dated 11.3.2005 was aimed to bring the
implementation of the AVS Report in consonance with c
Regulation 151 of Navy Regulations. The whole idea as
is evident from para 3 (a) of the communication dated
11.3.2005 of the Government of India was to protect the
inter se seniority amongst officers as per Navy list.
Regulation 151 (5)(d) of Regulations for Navy Part-Ill D
provides that Officers promoted by time scale to the rank
of Commander shall retain on the 'non-selection' list and
their inter-se seniority as before their promotion. It is thus
clear that the Commander (Time Scale) would continue
to be junior to all Commanders (Select) including the E
acting Commander (Select). If the policy as suggestea by
the appellant is to be implemented the rank structure in
~ the Navy which determines the command and control
structure would get radically altered. The Naval list
provides that Commander (Select) and acting Commander
F
would rank senior to Commander (Time Scale) even if
Commander (Time Scale) has put in more years of service
as Commander (Time Scale). If the guidelines and the
policy dated 11.3.2005 are understood as suggested by
the appellant the entire protection given to the Commander
• ~
(Select List) in order to maintain inter-se seniority in the
G
naval list would get disturbed. In the circumstances, the
High Court came to the right conclusion to repel the
submission based on Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. [Para 16] [446-8-H; 447-A]
H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.
A CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1611
.
of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 19.10.2007 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Bombay, in Writ Petition
No. 1503 of 2006.
B
L. Nageshwar Rao, Anish Dayal, Nikhil Mehra, Rashmi
Nandakumar, Anitha Shenoy, for the Appellant. ,.
Gopal Subramanium, ASG Satyakam, B.K. Prasad, D.S.
Mahra, for the Respondent.
c
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
D 2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
19.10.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1503 of 2006 filed by the
appellant herein.
3. Brief facts needed for disposal of this appeal are as
E
under:
4. The appellant joined the Indian Navy on 1.1.1978 as a
Commissioned Officer and is at present serving in the rank of
Commander (Time Scale) w.e.f. 1.1.1999. In or about May, 2001
F the Army Headquarters formulated certain proposals and
forwarded them to the Ministry of Defence drawing attention to
certain shortcomings and imbalances in the organizational
structure of the Officer Cadre. After examining the proposals so
made, the Ministry of Defence constituted a Committee in July,
G
2001 under the Chairmanship of the then Secretary, Ministry of ••
Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Shri Ajai Vikram Singh
(hereinafter referred to as "the AVS Committee") to examine
the issues and make recommendations within three months.
However, theAVS Committee submitted its report to the Ministry
of Defence in January, 2003. The main issue considered by the
H
RAVINDERASADASHIO KSHIRSAGAR V. 441
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
AVS Committee was Cadre stagnation and mobility. The AVS A
Committee after extensive deliberations inter alia
recommended:- (a) to grant time based rank of Lieutenant
Colonel at 13 years of service as per the criteria drawn by the
Army Headquarters; (b) corresponding reduction in age profile
of junior officers through grant of substantive ranks of Captains B
and Majors early to make it compatible with the overall aim of
brining down the age profile of officers. The Committee also
recommended that the rank of Colonel (Time Scale) be granted
at 26 years of service. The Military Secretary Branch, Army
Headquarters, New Delhi issued guidelines for implementation c
of the recommendations so made by the AVS Committee on
21.12.2004. The Army and Air Force duly promoted all its
Commissioned Officers who had completed 26 years
reckonable commissioned service as on 16.12.2004 in
compliance of the recommendations made by the AVS D
Committee.
5. As regards the Navy, the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India vide its communication dated 11.3.2005
addressed to the Chief of Naval Staff conveyed the sanction of
the President of India for revision of the various terms and E
conditions of service of Naval Officers, except Medical and
Dental Officers. The communication dealt with the details about
substantive promotions. In the said communication it was further
stated that the detailed criteria and procedure for grant of
substantive rank of Captain (Time Scale) to be notified by the F
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy).
6. Thereafter, the Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of
Defence (Navy) vide its communication dated 14.3.2005 made
a detailed scheme providing promotions to non-select ranks.
, 4 The Communication makes it clear that the fundamental tenet G
for implementation of the scheme is to protect inter-se seniority
among officers as per Navy list. The objective sought to be
achieved is to lay down the modalities with minimum impact on
command and control structures and traditional naval ethos. It
further provides that in order to maintain existing inter-se H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.
~
A seniority, Commanders (Time Scale) and Lieutenant
Commanders who have been finally superseded will become
eligible for promotion to Captain (Time Scale) only after all
erstwhile acting Commanders (Select List) had been promoted
to Captain (Select List)/Captain (Time Scale)/retired.
B 7. Being aggrieved by the above said stipulation of the
conditions the appellant herein and as well as the other similarly
situated Naval Officers made several representations to the ,
respondents pointing out that such stipulation makes the
Presidential Order null and void. The representations were
c rejected. Thereafter the appellant herein challenged the policy
decision of the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of
Defence (Navy) by filing the writ petition No. 1503 of 2006 before
the High Court raising several contentions. The High Court vide
the impugned order dated 19.10.2007 came to the conclusion
D that the petition has no merit and accordingly dismissed the
Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as
well as the respondents and perused the impugned judgment
and the material made available on record.
E
9. Before adverting to the submissions made by the
learned senior counsel Shri L. Nageshwar Rao and as well as
Shri. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General
it is required to notice that the AVS report is primarily focused
F on the restructuring of the officer cadre of the Army. It is no doubt
true, the report is made applicable in nearly equal measure to
the other two services also. However, the Navy and the Air Force
are required to work out their service specific requirements
including the additional vacancies, which will be required at
G
various ranks on operational/functional grounds. The report • .
makes it clear that the vacancies that may be necessary to meet
service specific requirements are to be pursued by the individual
service Headquarters separately.
10. Be that as it may, the Government of India/Ministry of
H Defence vide its cnrnmunication referred to herein above
RAVINDERA SADASHIO KSHIRSAGAR V. 443
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
addressed to the Chief of Naval Staff while conveying the A
sanction of the President of India for revision of various terms
and conditions of service of Naval Officers, except Medical and
Dental Officers which inter alia provides as under:
"2 - Substantive Promotion: To reduce the age of profile
and supersession levels in the Navy, as also to improve 8
vertical mobility, promotion to substantive ranks will be
., made based on eligibility criteria indicated below:
Rank Eligibility Criteria
a) sub Lieutenant On commissioning c
b) Lieutenant 02 years as Sbt.
c) Lieutenant 04 years from date of promotion
to substantive Lt.
D
d) Commander 11 years from date of promotion
to substantive Lt.
e) Captain (time scale) 26 years of reckonable
commissioned service"
E
Clause 5 of the same provides as under:
"Those serving in the rank of Commander (Time Scale)
will now be eligible for grant of substantive rank of
commander. The existing rank of Commander (Selection)
shall remain applicable till the existing Commanders F
(Selection) are either promoted to the rank of Captain
(Selection) or Captain (Time Scale) or are retired. No
further promotions to Commander (Selection) shall be
made."
' ~ 11.We must make it clear at the threshold that we are not G
impressed by the contention that the Navy under the garb of
'service specific requirements' rendered the entire policy and
the AVS report which was accepted by the government of India
nugatory. The report itself makes it explicitly clear that its primary
focus was on the restructuring of the officers' cadre of the Army, H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 4 S.C.R. ....
A while making it applicable to the other two services including
the Navy which has to work out its service specific requirements
including the additional vacancies. The Government's directive
dated 11.3.2005 and the criteria and guidelines for grant of rank
of Captain (Time Scale) dated 2.11.2005 were evolved by
s Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy) in the light
of the observations so made in the AVS Report. In the criteria
and guidelines so evolved it has been noticed that immediate
grant of promotion to Commanders (Time Scale) with 26 years
of commissioned service to the rank of Captain (Time Scale) is
c untenable since it would have an impact on the sanctity of the
inter se seniority. The Navy Headquarter was conscious that
the implementation by the two other services has been based
on mitigating circumstances such as their geographical
dispersion and selective placement. The Indian Navy policy is
practical and based on time tested, functional and traditional
0
norms followed even pre-AVS Committee. The guidelines
clarified that the new regulations do not preclude promotion of
erstwhile graded Lt. Commanders (subsequently not placed on
elect list for promotion to Captain) or as to one Commanders
(Time Scale) and Lt. Commanders (N graded) finally
E superseded to the rank of Captain (Time Scale), but only
appropriately deferred till such time the provisions of para 3 (c)
of the guidelines are complied with. Para 3 (c) of the guidelines
reads as under:
F "Erstwhile R1/R2 graded Lt Cdrs. subsequently not placed
on Select List for promotion to Captain and erstwhile Cdrs.
(Time scale) and Lt Cdrs. (N graded) (finally superseded),
. will become eligible for promotion to Captain (Time Scale)
only after all erstwhile Ag. Cdrs. (Select List) (PB 3/04)
G
have been promoted to Capt. (Select List/Capt (Time
Scale)/or have retired."
.. .
12. It was further contended by the learned senior counsel
for the appellant that paragraph 3 of the communication dated
11.3.2005 cannot have the effect of deferring the promotion of
H Commander ( Time Scale) who have already completed 26
RAVINDERA SADASHIO KSHIRSAGAR V. 445
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
years of service. It was also submitted that if the impugned Naval A
policy is implemented then no Commander (Time Scale) could
ever be considered for his promotion to the rank of Captain
(Time Scale) for a long time as most of them will retire before
they can be considered for promotion to the rank of Captain
(Time Scale). B
13. In reply, the learned Additional Solicitor General based
on the material made available on record submitted that if the
Commanders (Time Scale) are to be promoted to the rc;ink of
Captain (Times Scale) immediately as claimed by the appellant,
it would result in supersession of 1300 Commanders (Select C
List) in a single stroke who were senior to the appellant. The
learned Additional Solicitor General highlighted that the terms
and conditions of service of the Indian Navy are different from
the Army and the Air force. It was also submitted that it is not as
ifthe Commander (Time Scale) has been denied promotion to D
the rank of Captain (Time Scale) but it has only been deferred.
14. In our considered opinion, the High Court before whom
the similar submissions were made rightly rejected the same.
There is no dispute about the fact that as on the date of
communication dated 11.3.2005 there were altogether 1300 E
Commanders (Select List) who were senior to the Commanders
(Time Scale). There is also no dispute that Commander (Select
List) is always by selection and the Commarn;fer (Time Scale)
is automatic on completion of 26 years of service subject to
other requirements. The High Court is right in -coming to the F
conclusion that ifthe communication is to be read as suggested,
it would result in all, Commanders (Time Scale) though in the
Navy list are juniors to Commanders (Select List) or acting
.. " Commanders (Select) have to be considered for promotion to
the post of Captain(Time Scale). Precisely for that reason the G
Headquarter (Navy) came to the conclusion that it would affect
the command and control structure in the Indian Navy. Obviously,
that is not the object sought to be achieved by implem~nting the
AVS report. -
/~
H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R
A 15. Whether the Communications dated 14.3.2005 and
2.11.2005 have the effect of denying the chance of promotion
to the Commander (Time Scale)? Whether they are violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
16. It appears from the material on record that the appellant
B
like most other Commanders will retire before they can be
considered for the promotion to the rank of Captain (Time Scale).
No Commander (Time Scale) will be eligible for consideration
till 2015 by which time most of them would have retired. It is,
C however, explained that about 420 Officers ( 130 erstwhile
Commanders (Time Scale)) and 290 'N' graded Lt.
Commanders (Lt. Commanders who have not been select listed
for Commanders) would continue to be eligible for promotion. It
is further explained that para 3 (a) of the Government letter dated
11.3.2005 was aimed to bring the implementation of the AVS
0
Report in consonance with Regulation 151 of Navy Regulations.
The whole idea as is evident from para 3 (a) of the
communication dated 11.3.2005 of the Government of India is
to protect the inter se seniority amongst officers as per Navy
E list. Regulation 151 (5) (d) of Regulations for Navy Part-Ill
provides that Officers promoted by time scale to the rank of ,
Commander shall retain on the 'non-selection' list and their inter-
se seniority as before their promotion. It is thus clear that the
Commander (Time Scale) will continue to be junior to all
Commanders (Select) including the acting Commander (Select).
F
If the policy as suggested by the appellant is to be implemented
the rank structure in the Navy which determines the command
and control structure would get radically altered. The Naval list
provides that Commander (Select) and acting Commander
G would rank senior to Commander (Time Scale) even if
Commander (Time Scale) has put in more years of service as
..
Commander (Time Scale). If the guidelines and the policy dated
11.3.2005 are understood as suggested by the appellant the
entire protection given to the Commander (Select List) in order
H to maintain inter-se seniority in the naval list would get disturbed.
RAVINDERA SADASHIO KSHIRSAGAR V. 447
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
~ In the circumstances, the High Court came to the right conclusion A
to repel the submission based on Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
No other contention is urged.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this B
appeal and the same is, accordingly dismissed. ,
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search