The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has ruled that lack of a vacancy is not a ground on which the promotion policy in the defence services can be struck down and that result of a selection committee cannot be challenged only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified.

“Merely the fact that the petitioner could not be promoted on account of non-availability of vacancy before his superannuation is not a ground on which the promotion policy can be struck down. The promotion policy can be struck down only if it has no reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved and is discriminatory,” the Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Anil Kumar and Vice Admiral Atul Kumar Jain said while dismissing the petition of an Air Vice Marshal who was not empanelled for promotion two times.

The Bench observed that Air Vice Marshal Rajesh Isser of the Flying Branch was rightly considered by the Special Promotion Board-2019 and he superannuated on June 30, 2019, before accrual of vacancy at his own turn. Twelve officers were considered by the board for promotion to the rank of Air Marshal for six anticipated vacancies.

He had filed two statutory complaints against his non-empanelment for promotion, which were rejected by Chief of the Air Staff and the Ministry of Defence, following which he moved the AFT.

He had contended before the Tribunal that since 4-5 officers of the panel were due to retire before accrual of the vacancies, it made the zone of consideration unbalanced, and if the future retiring officers were placed in the select list, the Air Force ought to extend the zone of consideration to fulfil the vacancies.

The Bench held that the promotion policy is a merit-cum-seniority-based policy, and since none of the officers being considered was retiring before occurrence of the first vacancy on May 1, 2019, there was no requirement of extension of zone of consideration as it was not in consonance with the policy on the subject.

The Bench also said that the allegations made in the petition with regard to biasness and maliciousness on the part of the Air Force authorities seem to be on unfounded grounds. On scrutiny of the appraisal reports dossier, we find that his appraisal reports have not been moderated downwardly as apprehended by the petitioner, the Bench held.

“It is for the interview/selection committee which amongst others consisted of a ‘High Power Committee’ to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee,” the Bench ruled.