HC Deb 26 July 1904 vol 138 cc1197-8
SIR SEYMOUR KING (Hull, Central)

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in some recent cases the promotion of officers of the Indian Army, formerly the Staff Corps, as provided for under the regulations, viz., to captain after eleven years service, to major after twenty years service, to lieutenant-colonel after twenty-six years service has been retarded by order of the Commander-in-Chief, although they have completed the terms of service above set out, and have satisfied the conditions of service in operation during that period, and have passed the tactical examination; whether it is stated in the regulations that promotion is to he governed by such regulations as the Secretary of State may make from time to time; whether on the existing regulations stated, the Commander-in-Chief, while vested with full powers as to promotions in regimental appointments, in staff appointments, and in the Army departments, has also been authorised by the Secretary of State to retard promotions of officers in the Indian Army after time service; and, if so, when and where the new regulation has been published.

(Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Under Royal Warrant promotions in the Indian Army are made under such regulations as may be laid down from time to time by the Secretary of State for India in Council. Acting on this authority my predecessor in Council approved of the retardation of promotion in the case of officers who, notwithstanding that they may have completed the required length of service, have proved themselves to be inefficient. Such cases are determined by the Commander-in-Chief in India, subject to the approval of the Government of India, and are reported to the Secretary of State in Council. Up to the present the promotion of four officers has been retarded. The Government of India has been directed to publish the new regulation in Indian Army Orders. I may observe that the ordinary periods of service for promotion to captain and major are nine and eighteen years respectively, and not as given in the Question of the hon. Member.