ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Snakes and ladders

Major General Ashok K Mehta traces the background leading to Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat's dismissal last month.

Rank	Board	Recommended by	Approved By
Major to Lt-Col	No. 4	Army	CoAS
Lt-Col to Col	No.3	CoAS	MoD
Col to Brig.	No.2	CoAS	MoD
Brig. To Maj.-Gen.	No.1	CoAS	MoD
Maj.-Gen. to Lt-Gen.	Special selection board

• Except No 4, other board results are government-approved. CoAS has asked No 3 also to be under his jurisdiction.
• The competent authority for promotions and placement of Lt-General rank officers is ACC.
• Promotion was never regarded as a right. So no one went to court till the early 1980s.
• Each service has different promotion rules. Example: CoAS does not write Confidential Reports on army commanders. In the air force and navy, their chiefs do.
• Army commanders and equivalent are selected on merit-cum-suitability. Seniority is secondary.
• There is a contradiction in the seniority rule. While seniority is not the criterion of promotion to army commander in Lt General Kadyan's case, it is being cited in Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh's.
• The unplanned extension of tenure by two years as result of the Fifth Pay Commission report, has thrown promotion systems in a disarray.

The Kalkat versus Kadyan affair

Lt-Generals Raj Kadyan and H R S Kalkat are both first-rate officers of the 1962 batch. Kadyan is a few numbers senior.

On March 1, 1998, there was one vacancy for Eastern Army commander.

On the basis of merit, suitability and seniority, both were considered. Due to inadequate experience in command of a corps at the time of the vacancy, CoAS General Ved Malik recommended Kalkat for the appointment.

Apprehending supercession, Kadyan moved the Delhi high court which made Kalkat's appointment conditional on the outcome of the case.

On December 11, 1998, a single high court bench quashed Kalkat's appointment and ordered Kadyan be reappointed in his place. An appeal to a divisional bench by the government against the order was rejected.

On December 18, the government obtained a stay from the Supreme Court.

Kadyan has a legally watertight case, but on balance of merit and suitability, CoAS recommended Kalkat for the post. This is the first time an army commander's appointment has been challenged in court and upheld. It is also the first time an army commander has been performing his duties 'conditionally'. There have been instances in the past where similar wrangles have been resolved in-house by giving the contender the pay and status of an army commander/VCoAS.

The Ved Airy Case

In 1992, Lt-General V P Airy, DG Infantry in Delhi, was posted as DG Assam Rifles in Shillong. Alleging before the Delhi high court that he had been overlooked for appointment as principal staff officer, he sought to be retained in Delhi but as a PSO. This is somewhat similar to Harinder Singh's plea.

Over several hearings in court, part irregularities in promotion, suppression and appointments got exposed.

The upshot of the case was Justice S Bhandare's ruling that like the policy for appointment of army commanders, one be framed for appointment corps commanders as well.

Airy had to move to Shillong but his case gave the army a policy on appointment of corps commanders.

There was no court ruling, contrary to what the media have reported, that service chiefs enjoyed the authority to select their own PSOs. This was the plea made by the army in denying Airy the PSO's post in Delhi.

'Yeh General banega'

Kind courtesy: Sunday magazine

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature