Which of the following is/are correctly matched in terms of equivalent rank in the three services of Indian Defence forces ? 1. Brigadier - Air Commodore - Commander 2. Major General - Air Vice Marshal - Vice Admiral 3. Major - Squadron Leader - Lieutenant Commander 4. Lieutenant Colonel - Group Captain - Captain Select the correct answer using the code given below :

Explicitly uses phrasing 'rank of colonel and above in the Army and equivalent posts in the Navy, the Air Force', showing that ranks across services are described in terms of 'equivalent posts'.

A student could use this rule to look up where Brigadier and Air Commodore lie relative to 'colonel and above' and then compare the Navy's listed 'equivalent posts' to judge equivalence.

Mentions 'Officers of the rank of Major-General or equivalent rank' indicating official practice of mapping one service's rank to equivalents in others for precedence and protocol.

One could extend this by consulting official precedence/appointment lists (which map Major-General to equivalents) and then locate Brigadier/Air Commodore/Commander within that mapped hierarchy.

Similarly cites 'Officers of the rank of Lieutenant General or equivalent rank', reinforcing that multi-service equivalence is used in official lists.

A student could apply this pattern to find where Brigadier/Air Commodore/Commander fall relative to Lieutenant General/other ranks to infer equivalence or non-equivalence.

The snippet lists 'Principal Staff Officers of the Armed Forces of the rank of Major General or equivalent rank', showing the use of the phrase 'or equivalent rank' to align ranks across services.

A student could look up equivalent-rank tables or precedence lists to see which Air Force and Navy ranks are typically labeled 'equivalent' to Major General.

This snippet says 'colonel and above in the Army and equivalent posts in the Navy, the Air Force', establishing the practice of mapping Army ranks to equivalent posts in the other services.

One could apply this rule to 'Major General' (an Army rank above colonel) and search standard service-rank correspondences to identify the matching Air Force and Navy ranks.

The excerpt uses 'Officers of the rank of Lieutenant General or equivalent rank', again demonstrating that civil/military precedence groups are defined by a rank plus its equivalents across services.

Using this pattern, a student can infer that Major General will similarly have defined equivalents (e.g., one-rank-lower than Lieutenant General) in the other services and then check service rank hierarchies to test the specific equivalence.

Explicitly states that military ranks are compared across services (e.g., 'rank of colonel and above in the Army and equivalent posts in the Navy, the Air Force...'), showing a practice of mapping equivalent ranks between Army, Navy and Air Force.

A student could use this rule to look up official rank-equivalence tables (or a world map of service structures) to see whether Major maps to Squadron Leader and Lieutenant Commander.

Uses the phrase 'Officers of the rank of Major General or equivalent rank', indicating formal precedence and equivalence concepts across services are used in government protocol.

One could extend this pattern by consulting precedence lists or protocol documents to find the equivalent lower ranks (Major, Squadron Leader, Lieutenant Commander) in the same manner.

Again lists 'Officers of the rank of Lieutenant General or equivalent rank', reinforcing that equivalence between Army/Navy/Air Force ranks is an established categorisation used in official lists.

Apply this established equivalence practice to compare the named junior ranks via an official rank-correspondence chart to test the statement.

Explicitly uses the phrase 'equivalent posts in the Navy, the Air Force' when referring to an Army rank (colonel and above), showing that equivalence across services is a recognized concept.

A student could consult an official cross-service rank equivalence table (or the services' rank hierarchies) and compare where Lieutenant Colonel, Group Captain and Navy Captain fall to judge equivalence.

Lists 'Lieutenant General or equivalent rank' in cross-institutional precedence, illustrating that specific Army ranks have named equivalents in other services for protocol and precedence.

Use this pattern (one service rank mapped to 'equivalent rank') to look up the corresponding ranks for Lieutenant Colonel/Group Captain/Captain in official precedence or government documents.

Mentions 'Major-General or equivalent rank' alongside civil service grades, again showing routine official pairing of an Army rank with 'equivalent' counterparts elsewhere.

Apply the same approach: find the official equivalence used for Major-General and then find the similar listing for Lieutenant Colonel to see cross-service alignment.

Notes that separate Acts (Army and Air Force Acts, Navy Act) govern each service and that Parliament may restrict rights for discipline—implying distinct service structures even while equivalence schemes exist for administrative/disciplinary purposes.

Recognize that although services are legally distinct, official documents (acts, rules, precedence lists) often provide cross-service rank equivalences which a student can consult.

Groups 'Naval, military and air forces' together under the Union List, indicating central coordination of all three services and supporting the existence of unified frameworks (e.g., precedence or equivalence) across them.

From this, a student could infer central government publications (President's Secretariat, Ministry of Defence) are likely sources for formal rank equivalences to check the statement.