Delhi High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 844, 78 (1999) DLT 114
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner was detailed for Orientation Course but subsequently he was withdrawn. There was also another person, who was Mr.Jagdev Singh Langhe, similarly situated like the petitioner. The petitioner's case was withdrawn on the ground that he did not possess requisite experience and the Part II orders, Annexures P1 and P2, were withdrawn by the Army Headquarters on the 23rd of March, 1990. It is not stated in the counteraffidavit by the respondents that as and when this order dated 23.3.1990 was served on the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that no such order was ever served on the petitioner. Mr.Jagdev Singh Langhe approached the Bombay High Court and a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CWP.749/92 by order dated 4.3.1993 allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
"In view of this, we set aside the order passed on statutory complaint (Exh R6) and direct the respondent to admit the peti tioner to Officers' Training Academy for Orientation Course meant for permanent commission (special list) for Quarter Master in pursuance to his earlier selection.
That earlier training course might have already been over. We are also told that presently there is no training course available. The petitioner should be given admission to the training course which may be commenced hereafter, as against 1989 quota."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.S.Randhawa submitted that the petitioner was given no opportunity of challenging the order dated 23.3.1990 and when it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is a nullity in law and that cannot be put against the petitioner. According to Mr.R.S.Randhawa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, assuming what is stated in PartII Orders, Annexures P1 & P2, is incorrect, the petitioner had actual working experience which cannot be disputed by the respondents.
4. Mr.Maninder Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that in view of the order passed on the 23rd of March, 1990, the petitioner has no right to rely upon Part II Orders, Annexures P1 & P2, as they stood cancelled by order dated 23.3.1990. He submitted that the case of Mr.Jagdev Singh Langhe is different to that of the petitioner and there was no order similar to the one passed in the case of the petitioner.
5. On the premise that the petitioner had no experience, the derailment order was withdrawn and that has been filed as annexure P5 to the writ petition, which reads as under: "ORIENTATION COURSE FOR PF SL 1989 QUOTA FIRSTLY. FOLLOWING CANDIDATES OF QUARTER MASTER STREAM WILL NOT RPT NOT BE INCLUDED FOR ORIENTATION TRAINING TILL FURTHER ORDERS THIS HQ. ALFA 6649601X HAV CIK/GD/SD/ GURDEEP SINGH. BRAVO. 9079588 HAV C1K GD JAGDEV SINGH LANGHE. SECONDLY. ABOVE CANDIDATES WILL REMAIN ATTACHED AT OTA TILL FURTHER ORDERS. THIRDLY, ACK ON TELE AND BY RETURN SIGN. FOURTHLY. 390 COY ASC (SUP) TYPE B AND 261 TRANSIT CAMP ONLY. WITHHOLD MOVE OF ABOVE PERS IF NOT MOVE ALREADY TILL FURTHER ORDERS FROM THIS HQ."
6. The fact that the petitioner satisfies other requirements is not disputed by the respondents. The only point that was disputed by the respondents was with reference to the reliance of the petitioner on the Part II Orders, Annexures P1 & P2, and Annexure P17 which is a certificate issued by the Lt.Col. Officer Commanding regarding the satisfaction of duties carried out by the petitioner. If this order dated 23.3.1990 is ignored from consideration, it cannot be disputed by the respondents that the petitioner would be entitled to the derailment in the Orientation Course. I am of the view that once an order has been passed, it cannot be withdrawn in violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled that it is a nullity and it cannot be sustained and that is the position in law. The petitioner is well within his rights in claiming that the withdrawal of the petitioner by the respondents from the Orientation Court is not at all sustainable in law. I accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel, Mr.R.S.Randhawa. The writ petition is allowed.
7. I respectfully follow the course adopted by the Bombay High Court. The respondents are directed to give admission to the petitioner in the training course (Orientation Course) which would be commenced in the near future, as against 1989 quota. The respondents shall consider the eligibility of the petitioner in accordance with law.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
