Delhi High Court
Raj Bahadur vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003IIAD(DELHI)73, 103(2003)DLT30, 2003(71)DRJ785, 2003(1)SLJ219(DELHI), 2003(6)SLR137
Author: B.N. Chaturvedi
Bench: B.N. Chaturvedi
JUDGMENT B.N. Chaturvedi, J.
1. The petitioner was selected by B.R.O. Agra, at Agra and enrolled in the Army on 151.1999 in the trade of Clerk (General Duty). He reported to Brigade of the Guards Regimental Centre, Kamptee, Nagpur, Maharashtra for training on 16.1.1999. His training started w.e.f. 15.2.1999. After completion of Basic Military Training he was to undergo Clerks training. Before this he was, however, to pass the Aptitude Test scheduled in the 10th week of his Basic Training.
2. After completion of Basic Training of 19 weeks, the recruits who had passed all requisite tests were sent on recruit leave as per schedule. Nine recruits including petitioner were, however, held back as they did not qualify in the Aptitude Test conducted on 14.5.1999 by a Board of Officers. Having failed in the Aptitude Test, the petitioner could not qualify for Clerks training. He was given the option for change of trade in terms of Army Headquarters letter No. A/20335/1 /GS/MT-21 dated 5.7.1996, but he could not be adjusted in other trades as he was found short of height for the Western plain region (Agra Division). The petitioner was, therefore, discharged from service on 18.8.1999 under Army Rule 13(3), Item IV "Unlikely to become efficient soldier." The decision for his discharge was taken in terms of the policy laid down by Army Headquarters vide para 4(b) of the Army Headquarters letter No. A/20335/1/GS/MT-21 dated 5.7.1996.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by his order of discharge approached this Court with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issue of writ or directions in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb him into the service or take him back in the service for which he had undergone Basic Training and to regularise his service.
4. The plea of the petitioner is that as he was enrolled on 15.1.1999 and remained in the Army until 18.8.1999 (Forenoon) and was in receipt of pay and allowances till that date as per Army Act as applicable to trainee/recruits, his removal from service was illegal in view of Sections 15 and 23 of the Army Act, read with Rules 12 & 13 of the Army Rules, 1954. The removal from service, it is contended, was without any basis and arbitrary in nature.
5. The respondents, on the other hand, seek to justify the discharge of the petitioner from service on the ground that since the petitioner was enrolled in the trade of Clerk (General Duty) and after Basic Training he failed in Aptitude Test for the said trade, he was not sent for Clerks training. It is added that though the petitioner exercised his option for change of trade, but as his height was 166 cms. against the required height of 170 cms. for soldier GD and 173 cms. for Brigade of the Guards Regiment as per Addl Dte Gen of Rtg/Rtg 5 (OR) (A) Adjutant General's Branch Army Headquarters letter No. A/62518/Rtg (OR) (A) dated 27.7.1995, he could not be adjusted against other trade and had to be discharged from service.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. The point in issue is a short and limited one. The fact that the petitioner had passed the basic military training which he had to undergo before being sent for training in the trade of Clerk (General Duty), is not disputed. In terms of policy, as contained inletter No, A/20335/1/GS/MT-21 dated 5.7.1996, to assess the requisite aptitude and proficiency of a recruit for the Clerk trade, a test in that respect was conducted on 19.5.1999 by a Board of Officers. Out of 52 recruits who appeared for the test, 43 passed and 9 including the petitioner failed. As per policy those who failed in the Aptitude Test were either to be remustered into other trades as per instructions in vogue and the ones who could not be accommodated in other trades were liable to be discharged from the service in accordance with the laid down procedure.
8. Having failed in the Aptitude Test for the trade of Clerk (General Duty), the petitioner did exercise his option of being accommodated in other trade but being short in height, it could not be possible to accommodate him in other trades. In his reply to counter-affidavit, the petitioner does not controvert the respondents' assertion that he did not satisfy the physical standards required for trades other than Clerk (General Duty) in which he could be accommodated.
9. The only point of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that it made no sense to conduct Aptitude Test without imparting any training in the trade of Clerk (General Duty). According to him, such a test should have been conducted only after imparting necessary training in that trade. It being a matter of policy decision to assess the aptitude and proficiency of the recruits for the Clerk trade before sending them for training in that trade, no fault can be found with the respondents on that account. The requirement of an aptitude test being meant for all the recruits, no deviation there from could be prescribed for an individual recruit like the petitioner. The petitioner does not claim that given the physical standards required for other trades he satisfied the minimum physical standards for being accommodated to any of the trades other than the trade of Clerk (General Duty). In a situation where a recruit fails in the Aptitude Test in the 10th week of Basic Military Training, the only course open is either to accommodate him in any other trade or in the event of his being not suitable for any other trade to discharge him from service in terms of Headquarters policy decision contained in letter No. A/20335/ 1/GS/MT-21 dated 5.7.1996. Since, in the case of the petitioner the former option was ruled out, a Board of Officers recommended for his discharge from service, which was eventually approved by the Commanding Officer of the Regiment on 18.8.1999. Under Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules 1954, the Commanding Officer was Competent Authority to discharge the petitioner from service as he was considered unlikely to become an efficient soldier.
10. Reference to Section 15 of the Army Act, 1950 made on behalf of petitioner to assail the impugned order of discharge is simply of no avail to him as the same has no application to the facts of the present case. Section 15 of the Act seeks to deal with a different situation and has no relevance insofar as discharge of the petitioner in the given circumstances is concerned.
11. In view of aforesaid, discharge of the petitioner cannot be held as arbitrary calling for an interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.