<p class="title">The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on Monday reaffirmed the appointment of the Navy Chief Admiral Karanbir Singh, rejecting a petition of Vice Admiral Bimal Verma who challenged Singh's appointment on the question of seniority.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In a 44-page judgement, the AFT made it clear that seniority could not be the sole selection criterion when it comes to appointment to post as important as the Chief of Naval Staff.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Seniority in the panel of Vice Chief of Naval staff or Commander-in-Chiefs is the primary consideration, but can not be the sole criterion for selection of important appointments like the CNS. Negative traits on record, which come to the notice of the respondents (government) can be taken note of by them, while considering those in the zone of consideration for the post,” says the AFT Principal Bench ruling authored by Justice Virender Singh and Lt Gen Philip Campose (rtd).</p>.<p class="bodytext">After being overlooked by the government, Vice Admiral Verma, Commander in Chief of the Andaman and Nicobar Command, moved a petition to the Defence Ministry as well as to the AFT questioning the decision. The Defence Ministry had turned down his plea already.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The respondents (Govt) were justified in their action in superseding the applicant when they as per their discretion, which is clearly recorded on the file found that the applicant (Verma), though the senior most was not fit for selection as CNS, thereby appointing the fourth respondent (Singh), who was the next senior most and found fit for selection,” it says.</p>.<p class="bodytext">What went against Verma was two Letters of Severe Displeasure (LoSD) that he received in his career.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The first one was in October 2005 for “acts of omission with regard to his role as Principal Director Naval Operations during the Navy War Room leak case” while the second one was issued in June 2007 for “an act of negligence in having authorised the flight of an unserviceable Chetak helicopater while commanding INS Mysore (a destroyer).”</p>.<p class="bodytext">Dismissing the petition, the AFT says, “We find that the primary reason why the applicant (Verma) was superseded for the post of CNS was the fact that he had been preferred with a LoSD after being found guilty of a serious supervisory lapse in 2005 involving the security of the Navy's War Room – an incident, which was serious enough to have resulted in dismissal from service of his subordinate officers at that time.”</p>
<p class="title">The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on Monday reaffirmed the appointment of the Navy Chief Admiral Karanbir Singh, rejecting a petition of Vice Admiral Bimal Verma who challenged Singh's appointment on the question of seniority.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In a 44-page judgement, the AFT made it clear that seniority could not be the sole selection criterion when it comes to appointment to post as important as the Chief of Naval Staff.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Seniority in the panel of Vice Chief of Naval staff or Commander-in-Chiefs is the primary consideration, but can not be the sole criterion for selection of important appointments like the CNS. Negative traits on record, which come to the notice of the respondents (government) can be taken note of by them, while considering those in the zone of consideration for the post,” says the AFT Principal Bench ruling authored by Justice Virender Singh and Lt Gen Philip Campose (rtd).</p>.<p class="bodytext">After being overlooked by the government, Vice Admiral Verma, Commander in Chief of the Andaman and Nicobar Command, moved a petition to the Defence Ministry as well as to the AFT questioning the decision. The Defence Ministry had turned down his plea already.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The respondents (Govt) were justified in their action in superseding the applicant when they as per their discretion, which is clearly recorded on the file found that the applicant (Verma), though the senior most was not fit for selection as CNS, thereby appointing the fourth respondent (Singh), who was the next senior most and found fit for selection,” it says.</p>.<p class="bodytext">What went against Verma was two Letters of Severe Displeasure (LoSD) that he received in his career.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The first one was in October 2005 for “acts of omission with regard to his role as Principal Director Naval Operations during the Navy War Room leak case” while the second one was issued in June 2007 for “an act of negligence in having authorised the flight of an unserviceable Chetak helicopater while commanding INS Mysore (a destroyer).”</p>.<p class="bodytext">Dismissing the petition, the AFT says, “We find that the primary reason why the applicant (Verma) was superseded for the post of CNS was the fact that he had been preferred with a LoSD after being found guilty of a serious supervisory lapse in 2005 involving the security of the Navy's War Room – an incident, which was serious enough to have resulted in dismissal from service of his subordinate officers at that time.”</p>
