Prem Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1921 Del

*       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

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

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

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