HOME | NEWS | SPECIALS |
ELECTIONS '98
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Snakes and laddersMajor General Ashok K Mehta traces the background leading to Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat's dismissal last month.
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. Kind courtesy: Sunday magazine
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |