Brigadier Ravinder Singh, a 1990-batch officer of the Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers (EME), had challenged three confidential reports (CRs), averring that his non-empanelment for promotion by No. 1 Selection Board (SB) was the direct consequence of arbitrary and unjustified downgrading in two CRs

Observing that there cannot be a different yardstick for assessment in two different confidential reports (CR) governed by same policy, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has directed the Army to modify two CRs of a Brigadier and restore his original seniority which he had lost because he was not promoted to the rank of Major General on the basis of the contentious CRs.

Brigadier Ravinder Singh, a 1990-batch officer of the Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers (EME), had challenged three CRs, averring that his non-empanelment for promotion by No. 1 Selection Board (SB) was the direct consequence of arbitrary and unjustified downgrading in two CRs.

In the third CR, he claimed, the entire assessment of the initiating officer (IO), where he was graded as ‘outstanding’, was arbitrarily and illegally expunged without any reference to the IO concerned and without affording him an opportunity of being heard.

deflated’ by the reviewing officer (RO) and the senior reviewing officer (SRO) but was not set aside. Another CR termed as ‘inflated’ with the highest grading was set aside. It is contrary to the Army’s own policy and was carried out without following the mandatory procedures, making it legally untenable to adopt this selective approach,” Col Indra Sen Singh (retd), the officer’s counsel, said. “The officer was given only one lower grading, which was not consistent with his overall profile,” he added.

The Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Rajendra Menon and Lt Gen CP Mohanty, upheld the assessment of the first CR which was claimed to be invalid, but found fault with the other two.

The Bench said that it was a matter of “considerable concern” that No. 1 SB has relied exclusively and solely on the downgraded gradings awarded by the RO and SRO in the applicant’s CR as the sole basis for its adverse conclusion even though the same was placed on record as a ‘deflated’ CR.

“Such an approach demonstrates a fundamental failure on the part of the SB to consider the totality of the applicant’s service record, including his overall CR profile and overall average profile (OAP),” the Bench said.

“By confining its scrutiny to the assessments of two reporting officers in a single, isolated CR, the SB has effectively lost sight of the holistic evaluation mandated under the policy in vogue while awarding value judgment marks,” the Bench added.

The Bench observed that on the other hand, the third CR, which fits perfectly with the applicant’s stable OAP trend and is fully consistent with his past profile, has been expunged only because it was labelled a ‘near perfect nine’ assessment, without showing any internal inconsistency, technical flaw or departure from the required multi-factor analysis under the internal assessment guidelines.

“This selective treatment goes against the rule of arbitrariness that must guide all government action. The impact of this unequal treatment is not just procedural; it seriously harms the applicant’s entire career record and blocks his future promotion opportunities, causing lasting and irreparable damage to his service prospects,” the Bench said.

“This approach of reducing a career-spanning assessment to a single data point renders the SB’s decision legally unsustainable as it ignores the integrated analytical framework designed to prevent arbitrary or mechanically driven conclusions,” the Bench ruled.