NEW DELHI: Another ugly spat has erupted in the Army over claims to a top post. This time, Major General P K Bharali has gone to the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in the national capital, challenging Army chief General Bikram Singh’s move to appoint a Lieutenant General from the general cadre as the Director General of the Army Aviation Corps, instead of him. The dispute comes at a time when the legal battle over the alleged overlooking of Lt Gen Ravi Dastane as an Army Commander in June 2012 is yet to get over.
Bharali, who is now Additional Director General of the Army Aviation Corps, contended before the AFT that he being an aviation cadre officer should be appointed as Director General upon promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General.
Following this case before the AFT, the appointment to the top job of the Aviation Corps has been put on hold, keeping the post vacant now for an indefinite period till the tribunal decides Bharali’s case.
After the AFT admitted Bharali’s petition filed in April this year, it ordered that the Army keep the Special Promotion Board to consider names for appointment as Director General of Army Aviation Corps in abeyance “till next date of hearing and subject to objections” from the petitioner.
Aviation Corps, apart from being the youngest arm of the Indian Army, having been raised in October 1986, has no direct entry cadre, but draws its permanent cadre from other arms and services such as infantry, artillery and air defence with an aptitude to flying helicopters. The officers go through flying training and then get converted into the Aviation Corps cadre permanently.
The Corps currently has a fleet of helicopters comprising Rudra, Dhruv, Chetak and Cheetah for varied roles such as attack in support of armoured, mechanised infantry and infantry units in the battlefield, cargo and personnel transport, casualty evacuation and reconnaissance. Bharali contended in his petition that a post of Lieutenant General rank was created in the Army Aviation Corps in 2008 and sanction was accorded for it by the government in 2010. The Special Selection Board that was to be held on February 26, 2013 to select the officer to be promoted and appointed as Director General of Army Aviation Corps, had a panel of officers for consideration. Bharali’s name was among the contenders.
Bharali belongs to the Army Aviation Corps cadre and is the senior-most in his cadre at present. Since no decision was taken by the Special Selection Board in February 2013, another Board was scheduled to meet in April 2014 to consider a panel of names of officers for promotion and appointment as Director General Army Aviation Corps.
However, this time around, the Army top brass dropped his name from the panel of officers to be considered for the post, thereby denying him the right to be considered, even though he was the senior-most eligible officer from his cadre at present.
Bharali pointed out before the tribunal a Supreme Court judgment in the Brigadier Narinderjit Singh Sidhu case of September 2010 that “clearly held that after creating a permanent cadre and specifying the post of Major General in the Army Aviation Corps, persons from other cadre cannot be brought out from other corps” into the Aviation Corps for appointment.
On April 23, 2014, the AFT bench comprising Justice Sunil Hali and Lt Gen (retired) Sanjiv Langer, heard Bharali’s petition and admitted the case, apart from issuing a notice to the government and the Army.
During the hearing, the petitioner had cited the Narinderjit Singh Sidhu case to point out that filling up of the Army Aviation Corps posts with officers from outside the cadre was “erroneous and not justified at all” and that its inevitable effect would be “marring the chances of promotion of the officers belonging to the Army Aviation Corps”.
The government had accepted the notice and had sought four weeks to respond to the notice. The AFT gave two more weeks to the government and had posted the matter for hearing on July 2. However, on July 2, the AFT bench, with Justice Sunil Hali and Air Marshal (retired) J N Burma, posted the matter for next hearing on July 16.
Appointment combats
■ In 2008, the Army decided to promote Major General A V Taskar as the Judge Advocate General, the senior-most law officer in the force. This promotion was challenged by his junior officers on the grounds that his law degree was questionable. The government upheld Taskar’s appointment.
■ In 2013, the Army decided to promote then Major General Nitin Kohli as the Signal Officer-in-Chief, overlooking his senior Lt Gen G S Bisht. This move by the Army was challenged by Bisht, but Kohli’s appointment as Signal Officer-in-Chief was upheld by the government.
■ In 2013, the Army move to promote Brigadier T Parshad as Major General and appointment as the Judge Advocate General was challenged by his colleagues Brigadier Dinkar Adeeb and Brigadier P K Sharma. The AFT in Chandigarh upheld their pleas.