Delhi High Court Urges Indian Army to Reevaluate Retired Major General’s Eligibility for Promotion to Lieutenant General
INDIAN DEFENCE
The Delhi High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment concerning the Indian Army's promotion process, particularly highlighting the case of retired Major General H. Dharmarajan. The court directed the Army to reconsider his eligibility for elevation to the rank of Lieutenant General, which he was earlier denied. The basis for the rejection, a non-recordable "Reproof", was found to be improperly used in the selection process, despite standing military promotion policies that prohibit such informal reprimands from influencing decisions. The court deemed this reliance as arbitrary and procedurally unsound, stressing that only officially recorded disciplinary actions should bear weight in evaluating an officer’s suitability for promotion.
Major General Dharmarajan, commissioned in 1986, had a distinguished career, including his command of the 25 Infantry Division in Jammu & Kashmir. In 2019, he became the subject of a cybersecurity probe after inadvertently opening a malicious email on an official system. Although no sensitive information was compromised, a formal Show Cause Notice was issued, culminating in a minor Reproof. This administrative caution, however, was neither part of his permanent service record nor meant to affect future career progression. Yet, the Special Selection Board (SSB) used it to assign him lower comparative merit during promotion reviews in 2020 and 2021, effectively derailing his elevation.
Responding to his legal plea, the High Court nullified all prior non-selection decisions and mandated a fresh, impartial evaluation by the SSB for all applicable cycles. The Army has been ordered to review his record devoid of the Reproof’s influence and determine whether he would have qualified for promotion. If found fit, he must be granted a notional promotion to Lieutenant General, along with a revised pension reflecting the higher rank. However, the court explicitly denied entitlement to retrospective pay or reinstatement, limiting the benefit to symbolic rank recognition and pensionary alignment.
This ruling carries broader implications for military justice and transparency within the armed forces. It serves as a reminder that informal disciplinary remarks, no matter their intention, must not contaminate the objectivity of promotion boards. The judgment also reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the institutional integrity of defence personnel evaluations. For officers like Major General Dharmarajan, it provides a measure of redress and honour, restoring a legacy that could have been unfairly overshadowed by procedural inconsistency.
