Delhi High Court
Prem Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Anr. on 31 October, 2008
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:31.10.2008
+ WPC No. 2896/1989
PREM PAL SINGH ..........Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .........Respondents
+ WPC No. 2897/1989
RAM PRATAP SINGH ..........Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .........Respondents
+ WPC No. 2953/1989
RAM BABU ..........Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .........Respondents
+ WPC No. 1103/1990
DHIRAJ PATHAK ..........Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ........Respondents
Present: None for the petitioners
Major S. S. Pandey, for the respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
WPC No. 2896, 2897 & 2953/1989 & 1103/1990 Page 1 of 4
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J (ORAL).
1. The petitioners have common grievance arising from their discharge from service by the respondents on the ground that they are "unlikely to become efficient soldiers". The discharge is under the Rule of 13 (3) (iv) of the Army Rules, 1954.
2. The factual matrix are common. The petitioners were recruited to the post of a Recruit Havildar Clerk in the Army in pursuance to an advertisement published on 3.10.1987. The petitioners were successful in the examination for which the result was declared on 7.11.1987 and joined the basic training course at Bangalore. It, however, came to light, subsequently, when an investigation was carried out that the petitioners had actually failed in the written examination and had been improperly declared „passed‟.
3. The details about what had transpired is set out in the counter affidavit. It has been stated that the written examinations are conducted all over India four times a year and one Zonal Recruiting Officer is nominated to evaluate the written question papers and prepare the merit list. The merit list containing the marks of the candidates is then signed by the Zonal Recruiting Officer of the Recruiting Directorate which is checked for correctness and the candidates securing the top WPC No. 2896, 2897 & 2953/1989 & 1103/1990 Page 2 of 4 position are selected. A final merit list is then issued inter alia allotting the arms and service to the candidates.
4. A complaint was received on 26.8.1988 from one Sh. Babu Lal Prajapat that though he had been called for enrollment by an Independent Recruiting Officer of Delhi Cantt on 18.8.1988 and was in the merit list, on scrutiny of the list issued by the Recruiting Directorate it was found that his name did not figure in the same. An inquiry was made and it was found that though his name was in the merit list received from the Recruiting Directorate, there were interpolations made, including eight names which did not figure in the original merit list. The correct merit list was verified and out of eight such candidates who had failed to clear the test, seven were found to have been enrolled and dispatched to their respective Training Centres. A thorough check of the records of the previous two years was carried out and it was found that there were thirty candidates who had actually failed in the examinations conducted on various dates from 1985 onwards and had been declared as passed. Thus irregularities were found and the probe also pointed out towards one Mr. R. K. Sharma, Civilian Staff Officer. A conclusion was reached that the unsuccessful candidates had used unfair means to get their names added with the connivance of Mr. R. K. Sharma. Departmental proceedings were initiated against Mr. R. K. Sharma and a decision was taken to discharge the thirty persons who had been enrolled fraudulently. The petitioners formed part of this group of thirty candidates.
5. The action against the petitioners has, thus, been taken in WPC No. 2896, 2897 & 2953/1989 & 1103/1990 Page 3 of 4 accordance with the Army Act and the Rules framed thereunder, more specifically, Rule 13 of the said Rule in view of the fact mentioned aforesaid.
6. A perusal of the writ petition also shows that it suffers from lack of material particulars as to why the petitioners not having been attested as soldiers could not have been discharged under Rule 13(3)(iv) of the said Rules.
7. The recruitment of the petitioners was irregular as they had been shown to have „passed‟ even though they had failed in the examination. There can be no sympathy or empathy for such persons. The respondents have taken a right decision to get to the bottom of the controversy and found out the persons improperly enrolled and ensured their removal/discharge from service. Persons like the petitioners who were recruited improperly cannot be permitted to continue in service.
8. Thus we see no reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian in favour of the petitioners.
9. Dismissed.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J MOOL CHAND GARG,J OCTOBER 31, 2008 sv WPC No. 2896, 2897 & 2953/1989 & 1103/1990 Page 4 of 4