ORDER
Vikramjit Sen, J.
1. The Petitioner has been passed over for promotion to the rank of Colonel in the Indian Army. It is this decision which has been assailed by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. After the Counter Affidavit was filed by the Respondent, an additional affidavit had been placed on record by the Petitioner in which he has stated that the Respondents have violated Special Army Order 105 (SAO 105) which reads as follows:
“105. Extracts of assessment of reporting officers other than the IO required to be communicated to the officer, will be sent to the officer through the IO. Such extracts will be signed and dated by the reporting officer. The officer reported upon after signing the extracts, will return it to the IO. The extract, bearing the signature of the Officer reported upon will then be forwarded to the MS Branch for record.”
2. It is the common case that the Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer, namely, Rear Admiral M.S. Bedi (hereafter referred to as the R.O.), in respect of the ICR for the period 1st June, 1994 to 13th December, 1994, dated 23rd January, 1995 communicated his assessment directly to the petitioner, on that very day, and obtained the Petitioner’s signature thereon. This document is Annexure-P1 to the petition. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the R.O. was biased and inimical towards the petitioner, and for these reasons had given an unfavorable grading to the Petitioner. It is further argued that it is mandatory that, in conformity with SAO 105, the grading/remarks of the R.O. ought to have been conveyed by him through the I.O. and not directly to the Petitioner. As this procedure had not been followed, the Petitioner is entitled for promotion to the rank of the Acting Colonel. As indicated above, the gravamen of the attack in the writ petition had been altogether altered by way of the additional affidavit. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were confined to the averments contained in the additional affidavit, and he took pains to underscore that the petitioner had no grievance with the established promotion policy of the Army.
3. The factual matrix is that the first consideration of the Petitioner for selection to the rank of colonel was carried out in November, 1994 in respect of Cut off Cr 6/93-3/94 and the Petitioner was rejected. Thereafter there was a Special Review (fresh) conducted in July, 1995 in respect of the said cut off CR. As a Redressal had been granted against the figurative assessment made by the I.O. by orders of the GOC-in-c dated 16th February, 1995, the Petitioner was again considered, but rejected. Thereafter, the First Review took place in the month of December, 1995 for Cut off CR 6/94-12/94 where the Petitioner was once again rejected for promotion. The Final Review took place in July, 1996 for Cut off CR May 1995 but the Petitioner was finally rejected. The propriety of the proceedings before the Selection Board was not agitated before me. It is significant to mention that the Redressal dated 16th February, 1995 was not against the assessment of the Reviewing Officer (R.O.) but against that of the Initiating Officer (I.O.). This is being emphasised for the reason that the Petitioner’s case is that the R.O. was prejudiced against him. Since he had assailed the assessment of the I.O., quite obviously, this goes against the grain of the petition.
4. The question of bias/prejudice shall be dealt with first. Rear Admiral M.S. Bedi (R.O.) has not been imp leaded as a party, even though objections in this direction had been taken on various previous hearings. The averment in the writ petition is that the Initiating officer has given excellent reports which were not accepted by the Renewing Officer. In my view the R.O. should have been imp leaded as a party in these proceedings, since his personal bias has been alleged. Reference is directed towards a decision of the Division Bench in Lt. Col. Krishan chand Vs. Union of India, 1996 V AD (Delhi) 199 wherein it was observed that the claim of bias, “in the absence of the concerned Officers being parties to the writ petition was not required to be probed and was rightly turned down.” In these circumstances I would have considered it unnecessary to deal with the Petitioner’s allegations of bias. However, since at the instance of the Petitioner, the Respondent has produced for the perusal of the Court the four ACRS considered by the Selection Board, it would be in the interest of justice to record that in the thirteen years period commencing from the 11th year of service of the Petitioner, The Petitioner’s apprehension d accusation of bias of the Reviewing Officer is not substantiated and borne out from a scrutiny of the records.
5. The second question is whether there has been any infraction of SAO 105 necessitating the striking down of the decision of the Section Board. In the present case the Petitioner has been noted at the National defense Academy, Kharagwasala, Pune. The initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer (who was posted as the Deputy Commandant, NDA) have also been posted in the same Institution. The SAOs should necessarily be interpreted and understood keeping in view the normal circumstances prevailing in the Indian Army. It would usually be uncommon for the Officer, his I.O., as well the R.O. to be posted in very close geographical proximity of each other. Clearly, it is for this reason that the SAOs envisages the downward communication from the Reviewing Officer via the Initiating Officer and thence to the Officer reported upon. Attention was drawn by learned counsel for the respondents to Regulation 160 which states that communication of endorsements should normally be done through the I.O by Registered letter. SAO 105 need not be pedantically, mindlessly and meticulously followed by the letter, thereby necessitating the communication only through the conduct of the I.O.. The intendment of the Orders/Rules is to ensure that the officer reported upon has personal knowledge of the views/assessment of the R.O.
6. In the present case, since all three officers were posted in the NDA, the Reviewing Officer had considered it appropriate to communicate the assessment directly to the Petitioner. I cannot perceive any infraction of SAO 105 into the even as it transpired. The SAO does not indicate that the Reviewing Officer is expected to discuss his assessment with the initiating Officer. Only if this was so, could it perhaps be arguable that the downward/written communication should have been necessarily through Initiating Officer. It is possible that the officer reported upon may be posted at some distance from his Initiating Officer. It is more than likely that these officers would be posted at some distance from the Reviewing Officer. This conceivably could well be the reason why SAO 105 was promulgated. By directly communicating his assessment to the petitioner, Rear Admiral M.S. Bedi has not in any manner jeopardised or prejudiced any right of the Petitioner.
7. For these reasons I see no merit in the petition which is dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their respective costs.