Supreme Court upholds appointment of Lt. General Dalbir Singh as Army Commander of Eastern Command

Over two years after he retired, the Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the appointment of Lt General Dalbir Singh Suhag as the Army Commander of the Eastern Command..The judgment delivered by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta also upheld the appointment of Lt General Sanjiv Chachra as the Army Commander of Northern Command while dismissing the plea filed by Lt General Ravi Dastane challenging these appointments made in 2012..Senior Counsel RK Anand and advocate Uday Gupta appeared for the Dastane. Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan represented the Union of India..The appointments were made after the then Chief of Army Staff (COAS) initiated the process of examining the proposal to fill up vacancies which were due to arise. A seniority list of officers was drafted which placed Suhag, Chachra, and Dastane in the first three spots in the list..After following the due process, Dalbir Singh and Chachra were appointed as Army Commanders for the two vacancies. Dastane challenged these appointments before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) which rejected his Original Application. The AFT stated that the appointments were made on a comparative study and does not prejudice the interests of the appellant..After the decision by AFT, Suhag was appointed the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and retired from service on December 31, 2016, while Chachra superannuated in May 2014. The Appellant in the case too retired from the Services in September 2014..Senior Counsel RK Anand, arguing for the appellant submitted that notified policy decisions in this regard lay down that the appointment should be made by a selection process and not based on seniority. By making the appointment on the basis of seniority, the requirement of adhering to a selection process has been overlooked. By placing weight on seniority, the requirement of a comparative study is not fulfilled. It was also the case of the appellant that a Disciplinary and Vigilance ban (DV ban) was imposed on Suhag during the process of selection and thus, the appellant ought to have been appointed instead..Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan argued that the appeal was rendered infructuous in light of Suhag’s and Dastane’s retirement. On the issue of DV ban, Divan submitted that the ban was lifted before the appointment was made. Like Anand, Divan also submitted that the Army Commander is a selection post and even if the DV ban was not lifted, the same would not have made Dastane automatically eligible for appointment for being next in line of seniority. The appointment was made after a comparative study after a list of seven names was submitted, Divan highlighted..The Bench, on the aspect of the basis of appointment, concurred that it is a Selection Post and held,.“Placed below the COAS (Chief of Army Staff), the post of Army Commander is of crucial significance to the organisational structure of the Army. Seniority may be a relevant consideration — seniority brings with it experience of organisation, experience in handling situations and experience in perspective and planning. The post, however, remains a selection post. In making appointments to such crucial posts, which carry enormous functional responsibilities bearing on defence needs of the Armed Forces and ultimately of the nation, a range of relevant considerations can be borne in mind.”.The Court said the Appointing authority would be best suited for making these appointments and it would not be appropriate in the course of judicial review to confine the parameters of consideration..The Court cited the findings of the AFT on the question of these appointments vis-a-vis selection process, fulfillment of criteria and seniority to conclude that the due process was followed and the appointment was not made merely and exclusively on the basis of seniority. The Court said,.“The above sequence of events leads to the conclusion that there is no merit in the submission that the appointment of the third and fourth respondents was based exclusively on seniority or in violation of the norms governing appointment to a selection post by promotion.”.Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed the same..Image taken from here..Read the Judgment: