Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Arun Roye & Ors.
Background
The respondent, an Army officer, alleged that while serving as Defence Attaché in the USA, changes to how his Annual Confidential Reports were assessed (switching from figurative/numeric grading to only a "pen-picture" narrative, later reversed for his successors) unfairly damaged his career prospects. He claimed this cost him a proper nomination to the National Defence College course and ultimately his promotion first to Major General and later to Lieutenant General. A learned Single Judge of the High Court ruled substantially in his favour, directing the Army to revise his service profile and reconsider him for promotion; a Division Bench affirmed this but added further critical observations against the Army's conduct. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against both the original relief and the Division Bench's additional observations.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed with the Single Judge's core findings, that certain superior officers had made an unauthorized figurative assessment of the respondent contrary to policy, and that he had been illegally denied a legitimate second "look" for the National Defence College nomination, and found no reason to disturb the direction for reassessment of his profile and reconsideration for promotion. However, it held the Division Bench had gone further than it should have: it faulted the Single Judge for not deciding certain issues that were never actually raised by the respondent (such as whether his US posting counted as "Extra-Regimental Employment") and for treating a non-selection as a vital issue when it had already been overtaken by his later promotion. The Supreme Court therefore set aside only those additional Division Bench observations while upholding the Single Judge's judgment, and dismissed the Union of India's appeals.
Lesson Learnt
In administrative and service-law disputes, an appellate court should confine itself to the issues actually raised by the parties; criticizing a lower court for not deciding a question nobody asked it to decide is itself an appealable error, and here it did not change the final outcome of the case.