New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the Army for acting with a “prejudiced mind” and not considering an “outstanding” Short Service Commission officer for permanent commission, saying this is the reason why people do not like to join the force.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said when Major Ravinder Singh tried to look for an alternative appointment, he was not allowed to do so and when he applied for permanent commission, he was not considered.
“Prima facie it appears to us they (selection board) acted in a prejudiced mind against him. We would like to examine this issue. We can’t allow an officer to be exploited like this,” the bench said.
It asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre and the Army to produce the proceedings and original records of the previous Board, in which the appellant was considered for grant of permanent commission, on the next date of hearing.
Justice Surya Kant observed, “We know how these things work. If you keep saluting them day and night, then everything is fine but the moment you stop, they will go against you. Just because he applied for permanent commission and went to court, his ACRs are being targeted.” Counsel for the officer said the moment he approached the Armed Force Tribunal, his ACR became unsatisfactory and out of the 10 years in service, he was given outstanding marks in his annual confidential report.
The bench told Ms Bhati “When he wanted to go out of the service, you did not allow him to do so. When he applied for permanent commission, you did not consider him. If you behave like this, why would the people join the Indian Army.” Ms Bhati said the selection board considered 183 officers out of which 103 were selected for permanent commission.
She submitted that Singh got only 58 marks out of the cut-off of 80 marks and that was the reason he was not considered for the permanent commission.
The bench recorded the submission of Ms Bhati in its order, “some computerised records have been produced by Additional Solicitor of India in order to impress upon that the appellant could secure 58.89 marks as against the requirement of 80 marks for the purpose of grant of Permanent Commission.” It said the records have been returned to the Additional Solicitor General of India after being perused by the courts.
“Since these marks have been awarded on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), let those reports, along with details of communication of such reports to the appellant, be produced on the next date of hearing,” the bench ordered as it posted the matter for further hearing on February 4.
Counsel for the officer said that out of 10 years in service, Singh has served in the field including in Jammu and Kashmir and his seven ACRs were outstanding but suddenly after that his ACR became unsatisfactory.
“Now, they are trying to claim that he is insane,” the counsel submitted.
The bench asked Ms Bhati when were the ACRs written and who wrote these ACRs of the officer and what were the parameters, everything should be produced.
Ms Bhati submitted that these are confidential documents and even the selection board is a closed board which is not given the name and identity of the officers and the members have only the ACRs based on which they consider the officers for permanent commission.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
