IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL No.        OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP ( C ) No.24003 of 2007)

Ravindera Sadashio Kshirsagar …Appellant  

Versus

Union of India & Ors.       …Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated

19.10.2007  of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay

dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1503 of 2006   filed by the

appellant herein.  

3.  Brief facts needed for disposal  of this appeal  are as

under:  

4. The appellant joined the Indian Navy on 1.1.1978 as a

Commissioned Officer and is at present serving in the rank

of Commander (Time Scale) w.e.f. 1.1.1999.  In  or about

May,  2001  the  Army  Headquarters  formulated   certain

proposals   and forwarded them to the Ministry of Defence

drawing attention to certain shortcomings and imbalances in

the  organizational  structure  of  the  Officer  Cadre.   After

examining the proposals so made, the Ministry of Defence

constituted  a  Committee  in  July,  2001  under  the

Chairmanship  of  the  then  Secretary,  Ministry  of  Non-

Conventional  Energy  Sources,  Shri  Ajai  Vikram  Singh

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  AVS  Committee”)   to

examine the issues and make recommendations within three

months.  However, the AVS Committee submitted its report

to the Ministry of Defence in  January, 2003. The main issue

considered by the AVS Committee was Cadre stagnation and

2

mobility.  The AVS Committee after extensive deliberations

inter alia recommended:- (a) to grant time based rank of

Lieutenant Colonel at 13 years of service as per the criteria

drawn  by  the  Army  Headquarters;  (b)  corresponding

reduction in age profile of junior officers through grant of

substantive ranks of Captains and Majors early to make it

compatible  with  the  overall  aim of  brining  down the  age

profile  of officers.   The Committee also recommended that

the rank of Colonel (Time Scale) be granted at 26 years of

service. The Military Secretary Branch, Army Headquarters,

New  Delhi  issued  guidelines  for  implementation  of  the

recommendations    so  made  by  the  AVS  Committee  on

21.12.2004.  The Army and Air Force duly promoted all its

Commissioned  Officers  who  had  completed  26  years

reckonable  commissioned  service  as  on  16.12.2004  in

compliance  of  the  recommendations  made  by  the  AVS

Committee.  

3

5. As  regards  the  Navy,  the  Ministry  of  Defence,

Government  of  India  vide  its  communication  dated

11.3.2005 addressed to the Chief  of Naval Staff conveyed

the  sanction  of  the  President  of  India  for  revision  of  the

various terms and conditions  of  service  of  Naval  Officers,

except  Medical  and  Dental  Officers.   The  communication

dealt with the details about substantive promotions. In the

said communication it was further stated that the detailed

criteria  and  procedure  for  grant  of  substantive  rank  of

Captain  (Time  Scale)  to  be  notified  by  the  Integrated

Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy).   

6. Thereafter, the Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of

Defence  (Navy)  vide  its  communication  dated  14.3.2005

made a detailed scheme providing promotions to non-select

ranks.  The  Communication  makes  it  clear  that  the

fundamental tenet for implementation of the scheme is to

protect  inter-se seniority  among officers  as per  Navy list.

The  objective  sought  to  be  achieved  is  to  lay  down  the

4

modalities with minimum impact on command and control

structures  and traditional  naval  ethos.  It  further  provides

that  in  order  to  maintain  existing  inter-se seniority,

Commanders (Time Scale) and Lieutenant Commanders who

have  been  finally  superseded  will  become  eligible  for

promotion to Captain (Time Scale) only after all  erstwhile

acting  Commanders  (Select  List)  had  been  promoted  to

Captain (Select List)/Captain (Time Scale)/retired.  

7. Being aggrieved by the above said stipulation of  the

conditions  the  appellant  herein  and  as  well  as  the  other

similarly  situated  Naval  Officers  made  several

representations to the respondents pointing out that such

stipulation makes the Presidential Order null and void. The

representations  were  rejected.   Thereafter  the  appellant

herein  challenged  the  policy  decision  of  the  Integrated

Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (Navy) by filing the

writ petition No. 1503 of 2006 before the High Court raising

several  contentions.   The  High  Court  vide  the  impugned

5

order  dated  19.10.2007  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the

petition  has  no  merit  and  accordingly  dismissed  the  Writ

Petition.  Hence this appeal.  

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as

well  as  the  respondents  and  perused  the  impugned

judgment and the material made available on record.   

9. Before  adverting  to  the  submissions  made  by  the

learned senior counsel Shri L. Nageshwar Rao and as well as

Shri.  Gopal  Subramanium,  learned  Additional  Solicitor

General  it  is  required  to  notice  that  the  AVS  report  is

primarily focused on the restructuring of the officer cadre of

the Army.  It is no doubt true, the report is made applicable

in  nearly  equal  measure  to  the  other  two  services  also.

However, the Navy and the Air Force are required to work

out  their  service  specific  requirements  including  the

additional vacancies, which will be required at various ranks

on  operational/functional  grounds.   The  report  makes  it

6

clear  that  the  vacancies  that  may  be  necessary  to  meet

service  specific  requirements  are  to  be  pursued  by  the

individual service Headquarters separately.  

10. Be that as it may, the Government of India/Ministry of

Defence vide its  communication referred to herein above

addressed to the Chief of Naval Staff  while conveying  the

sanction  of  the  President  of  India  for  revision  of  various

terms  and  conditions  of  service  of  Naval  Officers,  except

Medical  and  Dental  Officers  which  inter  alia  provides  as

under:   

“2 - Substantive Promotion: To reduce the age  of  profile  and supersession  levels  in the  Navy,  as  also  to  improve  vertical mobility,  promotion  to  substantive  ranks will  be  made  based  on  eligibility  criteria indicated below:  

Rank Eligibility Criteria  a) sub Lieutenant On commissioning  b) Lieutenant 02 years as Sbt.  

7

c) Lieutenant 04 years from date of promotion  to substantive Lt.  

d) Commander 11 years from date of promotion  to substantive Lt.  

e)  Captain  (time scale)  

26 years of reckonable commissioned service”  

Clause 5 of the same provides as under:  

“Those  serving  in  the  rank  of  Commander (Time Scale) will now be eligible for grant of substantive  rank  of  commander.   The existing rank of Commander (Selection) shall remain  applicable  till  the  existing Commanders (Selection) are either promoted to the rank of Captain (Selection) or Captain (Time  Scale)  or  are  retired.   No  further promotions  to  Commander  (Selection)  shall be made.”

11. We must make it clear at the threshold that we  are

not impressed by the contention that the Navy under the

garb of ‘service specific  requirements’  rendered the entire

policy  and  the  AVS  report  which  was  accepted   by  the

government of India  nugatory.  The report itself makes it

explicitly  clear  that  its  primary  focus  was  on  the

restructuring  of  the  officers’  cadre  of  the  Army,  while

8

making it applicable to the other two services including the

Navy which has to work out its service specific requirements

including  the  additional  vacancies.   The  Government’s

directive dated 11.3.2005 and the criteria and guidelines for

grant of rank of Captain         (Time Scale) dated 2.11.2005

were  evolved  by  Integrated  Headquarters,  Ministry  of

Defence (Navy) in the light of the observations so made in

the AVS Report. In the criteria and guidelines so evolved it

has  been  noticed  that  immediate  grant  of  promotion  to

Commanders (Time Scale) with 26 years of commissioned

service  to  the  rank  of  Captain  (Time  Scale)  is  untenable

since it would have an impact on the sanctity of the inter se

seniority.  The  Navy  Headquarter  was  conscious  that  the

implementation by the two other services has been based

on  mitigating  circumstances  such  as  their  geographical

dispersion and selective placement. The Indian Navy policy

is  practical  and  based  on  time  tested,  functional  and

traditional  norms  followed  even  pre-AVS  Committee.  The

guidelines clarified that the new regulations do not preclude

9

promotion  of  erstwhile  graded  Lt.  Commanders

(subsequently  not  placed  on  elect  list  for  promotion  to

Captain)  or  as  to  one  Commanders  (Time Scale)  and Lt.

Commanders (N graded) finally superseded to the rank of

Captain  (Time  Scale),  but  only  appropriately  deferred  till

such time the provisions of para 3 (c) of the guidelines are

complied with. Para 3 (c) of the guidelines reads as under:  

“Erstwhile R1/R2 graded Lt Cdrs. subsequently not placed on Select List for promotion to Captain and erstwhile  Cdrs.  (Time  scale)  and  Lt  Cdrs.  (N graded) (finally superseded), will become eligible for promotion to Captain (Time Scale) only after all erstwhile Ag. Cdrs. (Select List) (PB 3/04) have been promoted to  Capt.  (Select  List/Capt  (Time Scale)/or have retired.”

12. It was further contended by the learned senior counsel

for  the  appellant  that  paragraph  3  of  the  communication

dated  11.3.2005  cannot  have  the  effect  of  deferring  the

promotion of Commander ( Time Scale) who have already

completed 26 years of service. It was also submitted that if

the  impugned  Naval  policy   is  implemented  then  no

10

Commander (Time Scale) could ever be considered for  his

promotion to the rank of Captain (Time Scale) for a long

time  as  most  of  them  will  retire  before  they  can  be

considered  for  promotion  to  the  rank  of  Captain  (Time

Scale).  

13. In reply, the learned Additional Solicitor General based

on the material made available on record submitted that if

the Commanders (Time Scale) are to be promoted to the

rank of  Captain  (Times Scale) immediately  as claimed by

the  appellant,  it  would  result  in  supersession  of  1300

Commanders (Select List) in a single stroke who were senior

to  the  appellant.  The  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General

highlighted that the terms and conditions of service of the

Indian Navy are different from the Army and the Air force. It

was also submitted that it is not as if the Commander ( Time

Scale) has been denied  promotion  to the rank of Captain

(Time Scale) but it has only been  deferred.  

11

14. In our considered opinion, the High Court before whom

the  similar  submissions  were  made  rightly  rejected  the

same.  There is no dispute about the fact that as on the date

of  communication  dated  11.3.2005  there  were  altogether

1300  Commanders  (Select  List)  who  were  senior  to  the

Commanders (Time Scale).   There is also no dispute that

Commander  (Select  List)  is  always  by  selection  and  the

Commander (Time Scale) is automatic on completion of 26

years  of  service  subject  to  other  requirements.  The  High

Court  is  right  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  if  the

communication is to be read as suggested, it would result in

all,  Commanders (Time Scale) though in the Navy list are

juniors to Commanders (Select List) or acting Commanders

(Select)  have to be considered for promotion to the post of

Captain(Time  Scale).  Precisely  for  that  reason  the

Headquarter  (Navy)  came to the conclusion  that it  would

affect  the  command  and  control  structure  in  the  Indian

Navy.   Obviously,  that  is  not  the  object  sought  to  be

achieved by implementing the AVS report.  

12

15. Whether  the  Communications  dated  14.3.2005  and

2.11.2005  have  the  effect  of  denying  the  chance  of

promotion to the Commander (Time Scale)? Whether they

are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

16. It  appears  from  the  material  on  record  that  the

appellant  like  most  other  Commanders  will  retire  before

they can be  considered  for  the  promotion  to  the  rank  of

Captain (Time Scale).  No Commander (Time Scale) will be

eligible  for  consideration  till  2015 by which  time most  of

them  would  have  retired.  It  is,  however,  explained  that

about  420  Officers  (130  erstwhile  Commanders  (Time

Scale))  and  290  ‘N’  graded  Lt.  Commanders  (Lt.

Commanders  who  have   not  been  select  listed   for

Commanders) would continue to be eligible for promotion.

It is further explained that para 3 (a) of the Government

letter  dated  11.3.2005  was  aimed  to  bring  the

implementation  of  the  AVS  Report  in  consonance  with

13

Regulation 151 of Navy Regulations.  The whole idea as is

evident  from  para  3  (a)  of  the  communication  dated

11.3.2005 of the Government of India is to protect the inter

se seniority  amongst  officers  as  per  Navy list.  Regulation

151 (5) (d) of Regulations for Navy Part-III provides that

Officers promoted by time scale to the rank of Commander

shall  retain  on  the  ‘non-selection’  list  and  their  inter-se

seniority as before their promotion.  It is thus clear that the

Commander (Time Scale)  will  continue to be junior  to all

Commanders  (Select)  including  the  acting  Commander

(Select).  If the policy as suggested by the appellant is to be

implemented  the  rank  structure  in  the  Navy  which

determines the command and control  structure would get

radically altered.  The Naval list provides that Commander

(Select)  and  acting  Commander  would  rank  senior  to

Commander (Time Scale) even if Commander (Time Scale)

has  put  in  more  years  of  service  as  Commander  (Time

Scale).  If the guidelines and the policy dated 11.3.2005 are

understood  as  suggested  by  the  appellant  the  entire

14

protection given to  the Commander (Select List) in order to

maintain  inter-se seniority  in  the  naval  list  would  get

disturbed. In the circumstances, the High Court came to the

right conclusion to repel the submission based on Article 14

of the Constitution of India.   

No other contention is urged.  

17. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this

appeal and the same is, accordingly dismissed.  

……………………………………J.  ( Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

……………………………………J.  ( B. Sudershan Reddy )

New Delhi;  

March 16, 2009

15

16