Sensitive Eastern Command headless as Govt dithers over posting

With the Government dithering on the issue, sources say the Eastern Command will be without its GOC-in-C for at least a month.

As per rules governing the appointment of Lieutenant Generals, who are or have been Corps Commanders, as GOC-in-Cs, the Government wants Army headquarters to send the names of eligible officers to the Cabinet Committee on Appointments for clearance. The Government then makes its selection.

The list of officers eligible for appointment as GOC-in-C has yet to be sent for political clearance. And this is on account of thecomplaint filed by the Corps Commander aspiring for the post.

There is a sense of urgency to this case, for with no other Command there are five field and one training command falling vacant thereafter for at least the next few months, the officer would miss out on the opportunity.

In his complaint, the Corps Commander has requested the Ministry of Defence MoD to review its decision to defer8217; his promotion. He has also requested that he be retrospectively placed in command of a Corps from April 1997, the date the selection board results were announced.

The complainant further says that if this isn8217;t possible, he should be given a waiver on the stipulation that a minimum of one year is mandatory in the command of a Corps in order to become eligible for appointment as Army Commander.

Incidentally, this Corps Commander has, in the recent past, been the beneficiary of some flexible rules.

He was a Brigadier until August 1995 and in less than 30 months is an Army Commander aspirant! This, despitethe fact that his promotion as Lt General was violative of the rules set out by the Military Secretary8217;s MS Branch at Army Headquarters.

According to these rules, on September 23, 1997, the day he assumed his rank as a Corps Commander, an officer had to have a minimum residual service of four years or more on the date he is promoted to Lt Gen.

This rule was, curiously enough, amended three days later by an MS Branch letter dated September 26, 1997 declaring that 8220;priority for the command of a Corps will be given to officers who have residual service of three years or more.8221;

With his date of retirement falling in August 2000, he would in any case not have been eligible for promotion to Corps Commander.

Additionally, according to a MoD letter dated November 18, 1996, an officer should have commanded a Corps for at least one year so as to become eligible for appointment as Army Commander. 8220;No waiver in this stipulation will be allowed without prior concurrence of the Government,8221; declares theletter. But in his complaint, the Corps Commander wants this stipulation to be circumvented.

Some, however, argue that the complainant8217;s plea is not without precedent: At least two officers in recent years were appointed Army Commanders despite having served as Corps Commanders for less than one year. But sources point out that the situation then was different since the stipulation on the minimum tenure as Corps Commander was not on.

Officers foresee a delay of at least one month, during which the Eastern Army Command would have one of its corps commanders as the seniormost officer in the theatre officiate as the GOC-in-C.

However, the question doing the rounds in the defence circles is: How can an officer who is inelligible, according to stipulations, put the brakes on the selection process as important as this.