LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Lt. Gen. Ravi Dastane AVSM VSM v. Union of India, Ministry of Defence through Secretary DHQ and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 301Decided 1 Mar 2019
Civil Appeal No. 9721 of 2014
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice Hemant Gupta

Background

Lieutenant General Ravi Dastane challenged the 2012 selection of two fellow officers, Lt. Gen. Dalbir Singh and Lt. Gen. Sanjiv Chachra, as Army Commanders (one of the two highest ranks in the Army below the Chief of Army Staff), arguing he should have been chosen instead, or that the selection process was flawed. The Chief of Army Staff had shortlisted seven eligible Lieutenant Generals, including the appellant, and recommended two of them based on their service profiles; the Defence Minister and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) approved these recommendations, though one appointment was briefly put on hold pending clearance of a disciplinary matter before being finalised. The Armed Forces Tribunal rejected Dastane's challenge, finding the selection was based on a genuine comparative merit assessment and caused him no prejudice, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court: by which time all three officers involved, including the appellant, had already retired.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the official file and found that the Chief of Army Staff had properly considered the service profiles of all seven eligible officers (not just the two ultimately recommended), that the Defence Minister was specifically informed which officers met the eligibility criteria before approving the recommendation, and that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet was likewise given the relevant facts before granting approval, so there was no breach of the Government's own Transaction of Business Rules. The Court also rejected the argument that a 1992 policy required exactly two names to be proposed for every Army Commander vacancy, noting that requirement (found in rules for Corps Commander appointments) was only directory and that widening the pool to seven candidates caused the appellant no prejudice. Although the appellant had already retired, the Court addressed the case on its merits for finality and found no substance in his claims, dismissing the appeal with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

Courts reviewing senior government or military appointments will check whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair and followed the applicable rules, but will not second-guess a properly conducted merit-based selection merely because a more senior or equally qualified candidate was passed over, especially where no actual prejudice or rule violation is shown.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case