Ex. Flight Cadet Savita Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1457 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The petitioner, after graduating from the Punjab University as B.Sc., applied for 14 Short Service Commission Course (Women) in the Flying (Pilot) Branch of Indian Air Force. After undergoing the selection process, she was selected by No. 1 Air Force Service Selection Board, Dehradun for training which commenced from 3rd January, 2000. The training consists of theory subjects, learning flying and outdoor activities. In the first week of March, 2000 second monthly tests were conducted in theory subjects. The petitioner was declared pass in all subjects except Avionics and Aviation Medicine. She could clear even medicine in second attempt. However, as per her own case the petitioner, when flying training started, it was discovered that the petitioner suffered from air sickness. After fourth sortie when the air sickness continued she was referred to Aviation Medicine training Centre. During this period she was also treated for stress bone fracture because of which she was excused from PT, parade and games. After this treatment when she went for fifth sortie, it was again found that her problem of air sickness persisted although there was some improvement according to her.

2. It appears that she could not overcome her air sickness forcing the respondents to inform her on 15th May, 2000 that her training was terminated. She was instructed take her clearance from AFA. It is alleged in the petition that during the signing of suspension report, the petitioner was asked to give option for absorption in ground duty branches, namely, Administrative and Logistics. She gave first option for administrative branch and second option for logistics branch.

3. On 22nd May, 2000 she left AFA for her hometown. Vide her application dated 9th June, 2000 she narrated in brief the reasons for not doing well in her theory subjects. Thereafter, by another application dated 21st July, 2000 addressed to the Chief of Air Staff, she requested for intervention in her case and allow her to join the ground duty course. This application was however turned down as she received letter dated 3rd August, 2000 mentioning as under:

"Termination of her cadetship from training due to failure to learned flying, weak in ground subjects and outdoor activities has been approved by the Government of India, Ministry of defense."

4. She thereafter sent another representation to the Raksha Mantri on 5th October, 2000 but as no reply was received, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the decision of the Government conveyed vide letter dated 3rd August, 2000. She has also prayed for direction to the respondent No. 1 to detail her for SSC Course (Women) in Administrative/Logistics branch of Indian Air Force at the earliest and protect her seniority.

5. The aforesaid facts as culled out from the writ petition itself amply show that the petitioner admits that because she is suffering from air sickness it was not possible for her to complete flying course. Although having joined the Indian Air Force, due to this problem she cannot discharge flying duties is more than obvious. It was for this reason the learned counsel for the petitioner did not even argue that she should be taken a pilot for flying duties after her training as cadet. However, the submission of the learned counsel, as would be clear from the prayer clause itself, was that as per the policy of the Government it was incumbent upon the respondents to give her ground duties, and therefore, her training could not be terminated. His submission was that she had done reasonably well in theory subjects and could be detailed for SSC Course (Women) in Administrative or Logistics branch of the Indian Air Force. Submitting that the petitioner had right to perform such ground duties, the learned counsel sought to draw sustenance from the Air Force Order 79/73 dealing with the procedure for Flight Cadet/Pupil Officers Found Unsuitable during Training and Voluntary Withdrawals by them. He referred to para 22 of the aforesaid Order, which according to him, squarely applied in the case of the petitioner. This para states:

"Criteria for Consideration

22. While considering the case of a trainee, the Training Review Board as also the Station commander/Commandant will keep the following criteria in mind:-

(a) The case of an officer on probation/flight cadet who is reported unsuitable for further training as a result of medical unfitness attributable to service, will be considered by the Training Review Board after his treatment for such medical unfitness is over, and his medical suitability thereafter for further training or absorption in any other Branch has been assessed.

(b) Flight Cadet of Flying Branch who, for any cause, are considered unsuitable for flying duties will be considered for absorption in Navigation Branch or in any Ground Duties Branch for which they may be found suitable in accordance with the tests prescribed for the purpose from time to time.

(c) xxx

(d) In recommending whether the training should continue or the trainee should be reflighted, the past conduct of the trainee and his keenness for training will be given due weightage. An officer on probation or a Flight Cadet will be considered for reflighting only if he possesses the basic quantifies of an officer, and it is felt that by reflighting there will be a reasonable likelihood of his achieving the required standard in his professional and other subjects.

Action by Station Commander/Commandant.

6. His submission was that as per para 22(b) the petitioner was entitled to be considered for absorption in Navigation Branch or in any Ground Duties Branch for which he could be found suitable in accordance with the tests for the purposes. His further submission was that in accordance with this para it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to give a chance to the petitioner to be absorbed in any of these disciplines. He also referred to the judgment of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court entitled Flt.Cdt.Ashish Rai v. Union of India and Ors. and connected matter being WP No. 3495 (S/S) of 2000 and WP No. 1100 (S/S) of 2000 decided on 5th May, 2001.

7. The respondents in the counter affidavit have submitted that the petitioner could not do well even in academics. She was warned in writing for her failure in academics as per the existing Training Command Air Staff Instructions (TCASI). Even additional tests were conducted to assess her performance in ground subjects but she could secure only 49% marks. As per para 11 of the TCASI it was necessary for trainee to obtain not less than 60% marks in each subject. As she failed to come up to the mark she could not be given ground duties as well and thus there was no option but to terminate her training as a cadet.

8. The short question which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be detailed for her SSC Course (Women) in Administrative/Logistics branch after she failed to qualify flying training because of her air sickness.

9. Paras 10 and 11 of the policy of TCASI deal with 'Failure in Ground Training' and read as under:

"Para 10: An instructor who considers that a trainee is not showing reasonable progress is to refer the case of CGI/DOS who is to administer a written warning recorded in red ink in the trainee's ground training folder. This warning is to be countersigned by the trainee and the instructor. After necessary coaching, if the progress of the trainee continues to be poor and he is not likely to reach the required standard in the subjects a second written warning is to be administered and the CGI/DOS will report his opinion, together the with the grounds there of, to the CI. If the CI, after examining the report, is satisfied action to reflight the trainee or to terminate his training should be initiated. The CI will then direct that IAFF (AT) 1371 be raised in five copies for suspension, or three/four copies in respect of IAF cadets/other trainees for reflighting, and forward them to the Commandant/AOC/Station Commander for convening a TRB requests for suspension in such cases must be supported by at least two previous written warnings recorded in the ground training folders and countersigned by the trainee.

Para 11: From 1371 in five copies will also be raised in respect of a trainee who fails in the final examination and whose training is not extended by the CI. Trainee must (R) must pass in all the final tests of all ground subjects including GST. The trainee is to obtain not less than 60% marks in each subject. If a trainee fails to secure the minimum marks required for passing in any ground, subject examination not exceeding 2 subjects he may be re-tested after being warned in writing, only once in that subject at the discretion of the CI. If a retest is considered necessary adequate coaching/classes are to be arranged before the retest is given. In a retest if the trainee scores at least the minimum marks required to pass in the subject he/she may be passed out. It is to be noted that the original (and not the new) marks and/assessment will be counted towards the final marks sheet/grade and overall order of merit. If a trainee fails in more than two tests or if a pupil is re tested in one or two subjects and yet fails to obtain the minimum/grade required for the subject/any one of the subjects, the trainee is to be warned in writing and is to be immediately brought before the TRB. The TRB may, after considering the case, recommend suspension or reflighting."

10. The petitioner has not disputed that she got only 49% marks. The contention of the petitioner was that when she appeared in the written examination on 24th April, 2000 she was assured by Air Commodore Kuruvilla that in case she scored more than 33% marks she would be absorbed in ground duty branches and as she scored 49% marks she should have been absorbed. This argument, in view of the provision contained in para 11 of the TCASI, is without any force. In view of the explicit provision contained in policy guidelines mandating that a trainee is to obtain not less than 60% marks in each subject, even if it is presumed that such an assurance was given as alleged by the petitioner, it was of no avail. The respondents are to act in accordance with the aforesaid Rules/Policy decision and no officer can give an assurance contrary thereto. Since the petitioner could not get the desired marks in theory papers also, the reason given in communication dated 3rd August, 2000 to the effect that she was weak in ground subjects as well, apart from her failure to learn flying and weak in outdoor activities, for termination of cadetship from training would be a valid ground and no fault can be found with the same. It goes without saying that in order to avail the benefit of Air Force Order 79/73 and before she could be considered for absorption in Navigation Branch or in any ground duties branch as per para 22 thereof, it was necessary for her to secure at least 60% marks in theory subjects which is a mandatory requirement. As she had not been able to qualify in the theory papers as well, question of detailing her for SSC Course (Women) in Administrative/Logistics branch does not arise.

11. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Flt. Cadet Ashish Rai (supra) cited by the petitioner would also be of no avail. The facts of that case would reveal that the petitioner was selected on all India competition basis in flying branch of the Indian Air Force and joined the training in January, 1995 and since January 1995 till Sept. 1999 there was not a single complaint against him. Admittedly, conduct and discipline of the petitioner had been found to be very good. It was also on record that he was enthusiastic, having officer-like qualities and an asset to the Air Force. The Air Force authorities had admitted that the petitioner was potential officer. In September, 1999 there was a party in which Along with others, he had consumed alcohol. Thereafter, he accepted his mistake and regretted. After Training Review Board report, Commandant ordered for deferment of one month's Commissioning. However, Air Officer Commander-in-Chief, Training Command Banglore, terminated him from training. In these circumstances, the Allahabad High Court found that since the petitioner was selected on all India basis competition through service selection board way back in 1994 and in pursuant thereto he was given training w.e.f. January 1995 in flaying branch and prior to the commissioning, due to injury (open knee operation) he was transferred to Navigation Branch and unfortunately there also prior to commissioning he developed cellulites and operated upon and could not be granted commission. Thereafter, he was allotted Ground Duty Officer Branch and he was put into training in July, 1999. Thus, the court held that admittedly he had acquired sufficient training in professional aspect of Air Force Service. It was on record, mentioned by Air Force officers that his Ground Duty knowledge should not go waste before transferring to Ground Duty Officers' Course. Thus it was found that he was otherwise a disciplined cadet who had done well in his training. The reason for termination of his training was that he had consumed alcohol in a party. As far as his training was concerned, he was successful therein and he had done well even in flying branch. He was even transferred to Navigation Branch only after allowing successful training due to injury. These two cases are, therefore, incomparable.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed accordingly.