Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Lt. Col. Sameer Singh, was commissioned in the Indian Army in 1994 and later posted to the Directorate General Quality Assurance (DGQA). After completing two years of service in the Collectorate of Quality Assurance, his case for Permanent Secondment was considered by the Quality Assurance Selection Board (QASB) on 17.02.2016. His case was not recommended because his Technical Assessment Report (TAR) for 2014-15 stated he was 'NOT YET FIT' and for 2015-16 'NOT FIT' for Permanent Secondment. He was subsequently reverted to the Indian Army. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which allowed the petition, holding that TARs could not be considered after the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 12.05.2011. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the OMs of 08.04.2004 and 12.05.2011. The 2004 OM required consideration of TARs, while the 2011 OM laid down specific criteria (e.g., minimum box grading, medical category, course grading) but did not mention TARs. The 2011 OM stated it supersedes all previous instructions. The Court held that the 2011 OM is exhaustive and TARs cannot be considered, as the later OM supersedes the earlier one. The Court also noted that the appellants could have amended the 2011 OM to include TARs but did not. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Delhi High Court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Permanent Secondment - Technical Assessment Reports (TARs) - Office Memorandum dated 12.05.2011 - The issue was whether TARs could be considered for Permanent Secondment after the 2011 OM. The Court held that the 2011 OM supersedes all previous instructions, including the 2004 OM that mandated TARs, and therefore TARs cannot be taken into consideration. (Paras 2, 10-13) B) Service Law - Executive Instructions - Supersession - Office Memorandum dated 12.05.2011 - The Court held that the 2011 OM, being later in time and specifically superseding all previous instructions, overrides the 2004 OM. The authorities were aware of the earlier OM and chose to issue a broader policy. (Paras 10-11) C) Service Law - Interpretation of Office Memoranda - Criteria for Permanent Secondment - The Court held that the criteria laid down in the 2011 OM are exhaustive and no additional criteria, such as TARs, can be imported. The 2011 OM specifically mentions ACRs and other requirements but does not mention TARs. (Paras 7, 10, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Technical Assessment Reports (TARs) of an Army officer are to be taken into consideration while considering his case for Permanent Secondment in the Directorate General Quality Assurance (DGQA) after the office memorandum dated 12.05.2011 came into force.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Delhi High Court judgment, holding that TARs cannot be taken into consideration for Permanent Secondment after the Office Memorandum dated 12.05.2011.
Law Points
- Technical Assessment Reports (TARs) cannot be considered for Permanent Secondment after Office Memorandum dated 12.05.2011
- Office Memorandum dated 12.05.2011 supersedes all previous instructions
- Executive instructions can be superseded by later executive instructions
- Criteria for Permanent Secondment must be strictly as per the latest policy
