Delhi High Court
Brig. A.K.Sapra & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 July, 2012
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 5.07.2012
+ W.P.(C) No.94/2012 & CM Nos.197-198/2012
Brig. A.K.Sapra & Anr. ... Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Ankit Swarup Advocate and Mr. Preshit
Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Priyam Mehta and Mr. Abhimanyu
Chopra, Advocates for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
Major K. Ramesh with Ms. R. Archana,
Advocate for Respondent No. 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. R. MIDHA
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioners, Brig.A.K.Sapra and Brig.D.V.Setia have sought
quashing of the order dated 22nd November, 2011 passed by the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench in M.A No.433/2011, titled as
„Brig.Stephen Jude Gracias v. Union of India & Ors‟ dismissing the
application of the petitioners for impleading them as respondents in O.A
No.350/2011 filed by respondent No.4, Brig. Stephen Jude Gracias and
the order dated 22nd November, 2011 passed by the Armed Forces
Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A No.350/2011 titled as „Brig. Stephen
Jude Gracias v. Union of India & Ors‟ allowing the original application
of respondent No.4 and holding that respondent No.4 is entitled for a
"second look" provided he meets the eligibility criterion and also that his
"first look" will not come in the way. The Tribunal further directed the
respondents to proceed according to the outcome of respondent no.4‟s
consideration and in case he is selected and found meritorious then to
detail him for the NDC-52 course. The petitioners have also challenged
the order dated 22nd December, 2011 passed by the respondents
nominating respondent No.4, IC-38656, Brig.S.J.Gracias to attend the
NDC-52 course and has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing
respondent Nos.1 to 3 to create an additional vacancy for the Corps of
Engineers for NDC-52 Course or at least to give the 5th vacancy to
which the Corps of Engineers are entitled.
2. Relevant brief facts to comprehend the controversies between the
parties are that respondent No.4, Brigadier Stephen Jude Gracias, was
a very high profile officer with outstanding series of 9/9 in three
decades of his service, with A Grade in all courses of instruction and
two Delta (outstanding) in Tank Technology, Army Technical
Orientation Course. According to him, he was even offered a transfer to
the most coveted general cadre so that he could be appointed one day
as a GOC of a Division, Corps., GOC in C of a Command and/or even
Vice Chief of Army Staff.
3. Respondent No.4 also asserted that he was promoted to the rank
of Brigadier and was even nominated for the 50th National Defense
College (NDC course). The respondent No.4 contended that he believes
that he was first in order of merit in Engineers and the NDC course
which commenced on 4th January, 2010. However, after 11 days of
attending the course, on 15th January, 2010 he was admitted in the
Army Hospital (R&R) where he was diagnosed for "Acute Myeloid
Leukemia", a form of blood cancer. Due to his disease, respondent no.4
required a protracted medical treatment and consequently, he could not
continue with his NDC course.
4. The respondent No.4 in his original application had contended
that as per the rules, an officer could not miss more than 21 calendar
days of his training in NDC course. Since he could not continue with
the NDC course on account of having blood cancer, respondent Nos.1 to
3 had to react expeditiously and nominate a reserve officer as 10 days
were still available to the Army Headquarters from 15th January, 2010
until 25th January, 2010 in order to avoid the loss of vacancy for the
NDC-50 course. According to him, this would have been in the best
interest of the organization, however, on account of inaction on the part
of respondent Nos.1 to 3, a coveted vacancy for the NDC was lost.
5. The plea of the respondent No.4 was that after 10 months of a
series of chemotherapy and Stem Cell Transplant, he recovered and on
29th October, 2010 he was upgraded to P2 (Permanent) with
Employment Management Index of F1B which is a medically
permissible category for further promotions to the rank of Major
General and above. This medical category also made him fit to attend
the next 51st National Defence College Course.
6. Respondent No.4 had submitted an application on 6th September,
2010 contending that as he had been cured of his disease and his
medical category had also been upgraded, he had become fit for the
next 51st NDC course. In the circumstance, he sought a "second look"
which is permissible under policy, in his case, in accordance with the
policy. He sought consideration for the 51st NDC course for which he
was also legally entitled on account of his inter-se merit.
7. The letter dated 6th September, 2010, was not replied to and since
the 51st NDC course was to commence on 4th January, 2011, he
approached the official respondents, who then disclosed to him that
since he had already exhausted one vacancy, therefore, he could not be
permitted to have another vacancy in the subsequent course nor could
he be given a "second look".
8. The respondent No.4 thereafter, made a statutory complaint
dated 28th January, 2011. His complaint was disposed of by order dated
17th August, 2011 and his request for `Second look‟ was declined. The
respondent No.4, therefore, approached the Armed Forces Tribunal and
asserted that he fulfills all the qualitative requirements for the NDC
course commencing from January, 2012, even with respect to the age
criterion of 53 years as he was 52 years old and therefore, there was no
legal embargo whatsoever for his nomination for said course.
Respondent no.4 also relied on the Army Headquarters Policy Letter
dated 23rd March, 2011 which specifically stipulated that every officer,
who fulfills the laid down eligibility criteria, is entitled for two
considerations (looks) for the NDC course. Therefore, it was contended
that he too should be considered a second time for the subsequent NDC
course in accordance with the policy of the Army Headquarter.
9. The selection system for the NDC course is as under:-
"1. Vacancies: Army has been allotting 33 seats in the NDC
Course. The arm/service wise distribution is as under:-
(a) Armed Corps - 2
(b) FD Arty - 6
(c) AD Arty - 1
(d) Engineers - 4
(e) Signals - 3
(f) Infantry - 13
(g) ASC - 1
(h) ADC - 1
(i) EME - 1
(j) Int Corps - 1
(k) AMC* - 1
(* Nominations are made by DGMS Army)
2. QR
(a) Rank:
(i) Combat/Supporting Arms
(ii) Services-Brigs (Cols may be detailed if no Brigs are
available)
(b) Age: Less than 54 years as on 01 Jan of the
Course Year.
3. Selection Procedure:-
(a) The selection system provides for two looks for all
Brigs provided they fulfill the laid down eligibility criteria.
(b) At the first stage all eligible officers are shortlisted in
a computerized order of merit based on the QR mentioned
at Para 4.
(c) The panel of shortlisted officers which includes
double the number of the allotted vacancies for each arm
and service along with the career profile of the officers
under consideration is placed before No.1 Selection Board.
(d) In case an officer in the merit list does not receive
recommendation for NDC in at least two reports the same
will be brought to the notice of the Selection Board.
(e) Each member of the No.1 SB as per his consideration
indicates his order of ranking against each officer. Finally
the merit list is prepared on the basis of the average
ranking given by the members.
(f) The recommendations of the No.1 Selection Board
after approval of the COAS are sent for approval of the
Government.
4. Performance Criteria for Drawing order of Merit:-
(a) ACRs considered: All ACRs earned in the rank of Lt
Col and above (less ACRs and ERE and deputation) are
considered.
(b) Criteria Reports:- Minimum two reports as Brig
criteria appointments should have been adequately
exercised in the command of a Brigade or equivalent
formation for a period of 18 months. In case of officers
supporting Army and Services as these officers are
promoted to the rank of Brigadier. Competent authority
may grant a waiver of six months in AE and accept officers
doe consideration with one report. Cut off ACR will be 01
July in the year consideration.
(c) Reject Criteria: An officer is rejected if he attracts any
of the under mentioned reject criteria:-
(aa) Discipline
(1) Ban of any type
(2) Disciplinary award other than Ordinary earned in the
rank of Lt.Col, Col and Brig.
(ab)Box Grading:- A single box grading of 6 in Brigs report
will be a reject criteria.
(ac) Grading in Individual Qualities: 7 or less points not
to occur more than twice in each Brig report.
(ad) Specific Weakness- The officer should not been
reported to have any of the following weaknesses:-
(a) Integrity and Loyalty
(b) Stability
(c) Moral Turpitude
(d) Wine and women
(e) Financial Affairs"
10. The respondent No.4, thus contended that he should have been
considered with the computerized merit list data of 51st NDC Course
inter-alia on the ground that he fulfilled all the qualitative requirements
for the NDC course commencing from January, 2012 including the age
criterion of 53 years and as per the Army Headquarter policy he was
entitled for "two looks". It was contended that since the "second look" is
given even to an officer who has failed to make the grade in the first
attempt, the officer who was selected in the first look but could not
complete the course on account of his medical condition or on account
of circumstances not imputable to him, cannot be placed in a category
different from category in which the officers who fail in the first look are
placed and who are still entitled for the second look. In the
circumstances, respondent No.4 sought directions to respondent Nos.1
to 3 stating that on the basis of comparing his merit with the
computerized merit list of NDC-51, if he is found eligible then a second
look be given to the respondent No.4 and if it is proved that he has
higher merit than the other Engineer Officers nominated to attend the
NDC 51 course, then the respondent No.4 should be nominated to
attend the NDC-51 course commencing from January, 2012.
11. The original application filed by respondent No.4 was contested
by respondent Nos.1 to 3 contending inter-alia that the NDC aims to
prepare the next generation of policy makers selected from the defence
services and civil services of India for increased responsibility, through
a course involving National Security and strategy. It was pleaded that
each arm and service of the Army is given specified vacancies in the
NDC course and though the NDC course is a career course, yet the
officers who are not NDC qualified, can also be promoted, as the
chances for promotion to the next rank is based on the overall profile
and comparative merit based on the number of vacancies. It was further
contended that if an officer is not considered fit to undergo the course,
it does not visit any penal consequences nor is it a matter of right to
undergo the NDC course.
12. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 rather contended that though every
Brigadier is entitled for two looks, however, an officer is given second
look/consideration only if he has not been nominated in the first look.
It was submitted that since the respondent No.4 was considered and
selected for the NDC-50 course commencing from 4th January, 2010
and he had exhausted a vacancy after being nominated, he is not
entitled to receive the second look/consideration for a vacancy in the
subsequent year.
13. The official respondents admitted that an officer cannot be "taken
off" from a course unless his absence exceeds 21 days. As respondent
No.4 had exceeded the maximum permissible three weeks absence and
his continuation in the course was held to be not feasible, therefore, on
receipt of the information about the medical condition of respondent
no.4, he was taken off from the NDC course by order dated 16th March,
2010. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 contended that by that time it was
neither practicable nor permissible to detail another person in place of
respondent no.4.
14. Regarding the fitness of the respondent no.4 for the subsequent
NDC course, it was asserted that an officer is required to be in
acceptable medical category on the date on which the Selection Board is
held. It was submitted that the Selection Board for NDC-51 course was
held on 28th October, 2010 whereas the Medical Board in respect of
respondent No.4 was held on 29th October, 2010 and the proceedings
duly approved by the competent authority were received by letter dated
24th November, 2010, much after the holding of the Selection Board for
NDC-51. In any case, according to respondent Nos.1 to 3, respondent
No.4 was not entitled for a "second look" as per the uniformly followed
practice.
15. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 categorically contended that since the
respondent No.4 was selected for NDC-50 on his first consideration, he
is not entitled for a second consideration or "second look" as per the
policy in vogue and the practice which is uniformly followed. Selections,
according to the official respondents are based on comparative merits of
the officers who are in the agenda list of the respective year. It was
urged that the respondent No.4 is not eligible for a "second look" as he
was not eligible on the date the NDC selection board for NDC-51 was
held on 28th October, 2010. Thus, it was contended that the petitioner
is not entitled for consideration for the NDC-52 course. The respondent
Nos.1 to 3 also relied on the order dated 17th August, 2011 passed on
the statutory complaint dated 28th January, 2011 filed by the
respondent No.4 against denial of vacancy on NDC-51 course. While
rejecting the statutory complaint of the respondent No.4 the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 had held as under:-
"2. The Officer has requested for:-
(i) Grant of weightage of 0.75 marks for NDC in the
Quantified System for Selection Boards for all future
Selection Boards for purposes of promotion and any other
competitive selection since he was denied a fair opportunity
to do NDC-51 in 2011 after being withdrawn from NDC-50
in 2010 on Medical grounds for reasons beyond his control.
(ii) Nomination to attend NDC-52 w.e.f.Jan 2012 in case
redress sought is not granted, and weightage of 0.75 marks
for doing NDC-52 be given to him in case of any Selection
Board is held during the duration of NDC-52 course in
2012.
3. The Statutory Complaint of the officer has been
examined in the light of his career profile, relevant records
and analysis/recommendations of Army HQ. After
consideration of all aspects of the complaint and viewing it
against the redress sought, it has emerged that the issues
raised in the complaint are contrary to the existing policy
on NDC course. Screening, selection and allocation of
marks for the NDC course is a matter of policy which is
uniformly applicable to all similarly placed officers. The
officer‟s contention that he be granted a weightage of 0.75
marks for NDC in the Quantified System for Selection
Board for all future promotions and other competitive
selection is devoid of merit as marks are awarded to officers
only on successful completion of the course. The officer‟s
other contention that he be nominated to attend NDC-52
wef Jan 2012 is also devoid of merit since only those
officers are given „Second Look‟, who have not been
nominated in their „First Look‟, subject to meeting other
eligibility criteria. The officer was nominated for NDC-50 in
his „First Look‟ and had utilized a NDC vacancy."
16. During the pendency of the original application filed by
respondent No.4, he had also filed an interim application seeking
consideration for nomination to NDC-52 course which was likely to be
concluded by the week ending 15th October, 2011. After considering the
pleas and contentions of the respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.1 to
3, the Armed Forces Tribunal by order dated 12th October, 2011
directed the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provisionally consider respondent
No.3 for nomination to NDC-52 course and in case the respondent No.4
meets the eligibility criterion, not to classify the results till the passing
of the final orders in his original application being O.A No.350/2011.
17. After the interim order was passed by the Tribunal directing the
provisional consideration of respondent No.4 by the official
respondents, an application for impleading as parties in the original
application of the respondent No.4 was filed by the petitioners under
Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
contending inter-alia that they are in the zone of consideration for the
4th vacancy and as such they are vitally interested in the NDC 52nd
course since it is an important career milestone, as on successfully
completing the course, an officer is entitled to a weightage of 0.75
marks for promotion to the next rank of Major General. According to the
petitioners they came to know about the pendency of the original
application of respondent No.4 after the results of three vacancies were
declassified on 14th October, 2011 and in case the 4th vacancy is given
to respondent No.4 it is contended that the career prospects of the
petitioners would be seriously prejudiced.
18. The petitioners had also filed a reply to the original application of
respondent No.4 contending inter-alia that respondent No.4 is not
entitled to any relief as per the existing policy and no challenge has
been laid out to the policy governing the nomination to the NDC course
and, therefore, the original application of respondent No.4 is not likely
to succeed. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 also stated categorically that
even if respondent No.4 is nominated for the course commencing in
January, 2012, he will not draw any benefit of weightage earmarked for
the NDC course, as the Selection Board for the rank of Major General is
likely to be held during the currency of NDC-52 course and as such it
would have no impact on his next promotion.
19. The application of the petitioners for impleadment being MA
No.433/2011 in O.A No.350/2011 was dismissed by the Armed Forces
Tribunal by order dated 22nd November, 2011. The Tribunal, while
dismissing the misc. application of the petitioners, seeking impleadment
as a party, had held as under:-
"12. We have heard all the parties at length. We are of the
opinion that whatever decision is taken in OA
No.350/2011, the same should be in the larger interest of
the organisation. It should also meet the ends of justice.
Thus, without observing and commenting on the merit of
the main case, we are of the opinion that the contentions of
the applicants in this M.A. cannot withstand the legal
scrutiny. We, therefore, reject the application. However, the
interest of organisation is paramount and interest of all the
parties concerned, will also be kept in mind while disposing
off the OA No.350/2011."
20. The Tribunal allowed the application of respondent No.4 holding
that respondent No.4 was nominated by his own merit in NDC-50
course commencing on 4th January, 2010 but he had to withdraw from
the course for reasons beyond his control. The Tribunal held that the
ailment (Acute Myeloid Leukemia) that respondent No.4 suffered was
attributable to Military Service. According to Principal Bench, the policy
for nomination to NDC course is not very clear as to the look required to
be given to the officer, as in normal course, a person who does not
figure in the first look will be given second look. Consequently, an
officer who is not able to be selected in the first look is entitled to be
considered under the second look. The Tribunal also held that the case
of respondent No.4 is unique, he had been nominated in the first look
but he could not undergo the course due to reasons beyond his control
and the policy letter is silent on such situation. In this regard, the
Tribunal took into consideration the whole policy, aim and object of the
policy in deciding the case of respondent No.4. The Tribunal also
considered the impact of providing the second look to respondent No.1
and its impact in depriving another officer a chance to do NDC course.
The Tribunal was conscious of the fact that merely giving second look to
respondent No.4 would not mean that he would be selected or
nominated as he will have to compete with other officer eligible in the
next NDC course and, therefore, giving a second look to the petitioner is
not giving him an unfair advantage over the officer who is not
nominated to attend NDC-52 course.
21. The orders of dismissing the application of the petitioners for
impleadment and allowing the original application, being OA
No.350/2011, are challenged by the petitioners in the above noted writ
petition inter-alia on the grounds that the petitioners were short-listed
in NDC-52 course and were vitally interested in the outcome of the
original application filed by respondent No.4 seeking consideration as a
second look for NDC-52 course and thus, the petitioners were the
necessary party and ought to have been impleaded as the respondents
in the original application, being OA No.350/2011, filed by respondent
No.4. The petitioners contended that while dismissing their application
for impleadment, the Tribunal has not given any reasons. The
petitioners have challenged the order of the Tribunal allowing
respondent No.4 consideration for the second look for NDC-52 course
on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed mechanically
by merely noticing the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and
without dealing with them. The petitioners alleged that the NDC course
is an important career milestone and carries weightage of 0.75 marks
for promotion to the rank of Major General and the petitioners being in
the zone of consideration would be affected by the decision of the
original application filed by respondent No.4.
22. The petitioners challenged the order of the Tribunal contending
that the Tribunal has misinterpreted the policy dated 23rd March, 1995
regarding the second look to an officer who has already been selected in
the first look. According to the petitioners, the observation of the
Tribunal that the candidates nominated in other courses of instruction
do not forfeit authorized number of chances, if they are unable to
attend the course due to astonish reasons is incorrect and in any case
NDC course cannot be equated with any other course. The petitioners
contended that every succeeding batch of officer is entitled to
consideration for nomination for NDC course. Since respondent No.4
was considered and nominated along with his batch, therefore,
consideration of respondent No.4 for NDC-52 course would mean that
one officer from the batch entitled for consideration for NDC-52 course,
would lose his chance which is not justifiable in the facts and
circumstances.
23. According to the petitioners, the second look can be given only for
the next succeeding course and not thereafter and it cannot be carried
forward ad-inefenitum subject to age criteria in any case, respondent
No.4 had sought relief for consideration along with shortlisted
candidates for NDC-51 course and if found higher in order of merit, he
also asked for nomination to NDC-52 course which could not be done
under the policy dated 23rd March, 1995.
24. The petitioners also asserted that the policy dated 23rd March,
1995 was not challenged by respondent No.4 and he had sought relief
within the policy which contemplates the second look only in case of
succeeding course, and therefore, respondent No.4 at best could claim
consideration for NDC-51 course and the Tribunal ought not have
allowed his consideration for NDC-52 course which have adversely
impacted petitioners as this has resulted in the allocation of additional
vacancy apart from the four vacancies provided to the Corps of
Engineer. The petitioners made a grievance that this has resulted in
allocation of five vacancies to the Corps of Engineer which in fact has
not been done by respondent Nos.1 to 3.
25. The petitioners contended that they have locus standi in the
matter as they are aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 22nd
November, 2011 and relied on Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr., (1966) 3 SCR 744; B.M.Aggarwal v. Chancellor,
University of Allahabad & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 500; Principal, Patna
College, Patna & Ors. v. Kanlyan Srinivas Raman, AIR 1966 SC 707 and
Raymond Synthetics Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC
847 regarding supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over the Armed
Force Tribunal. The petitioners relied on Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna
Chandra Mohanty & Ors, (1998) 4 SCC 447; Col.A.D.Nargolkar v. Union
of India & Ors., 179 (2011) DLT 447 and Shihabudeen v. Principal
Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), 2011 (1) KLJ 780.
26. The writ petition is contested by the respondents. Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit dated 17th January, 2012 contending
inter-alia that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not
maintainable relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors., (1998) 4
SCC 447 to contend that remedy available to a person who is aggrieved
by the order of the Tribunal to which he was not a party is to file a
separate writ petition before the Tribunal and if the Tribunal agrees
with the contentions of such a person who is not a party to the order
passed by the Tribunal earlier then to refer the matter to a larger
Bench. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that the writ petition could
not be filed by the petitioners directly to the High Court challenging the
order of the Tribunal allowing the original application of respondent
No.4 allowing him to be considered for NDC-52 course. Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 also contended that the petitioners could not challenge the
order dated 22nd November, 2011 whereby the name of respondent No.4
has been nominated to attend NDC-52 course as the said order was not
under challenge in original application No.350/2011 which is a fresh
cause of action and the petitioners could challenge the order before the
Principal Bench, Armed Force Tribunal only.
27. Regarding the allocation of five vacancies to the Corps of
Engineer, respondent Nos.1 to 3 pleaded that the vacancies on NDC
course allotted on the basis of pro rata share according to which the
Corps of Engineer are entitled for four vacancies on NDC-52 course.
Regarding NDC-48 course, it was asserted that one more vacancy was
allotted to the Corps of Engineer to NDC-48 course which was a special
case due to non-availability a suitable officer from some other
Army/Service for the said course.
28. Regarding policy dated 23rd March, 1995, respondent Nos.1 to 3
took a stand that Army has a pyramidical rank structure for promotion
and selection board taking into consideration various factors viz
confidential reports, course done, grading obtained on the course,
honors and award, disciplinary background etc. and selection is based
on overall profile of an officer. With effect from 1st January, 2009, Army
has adopted a quantified system for selection by which parameters for
selection have been quantified. The weightage for NDC course is 0.75
marks, however, merely qualifying NDC course, does not entitle an
officer automatic selection in the rank of Major General. The officers
who have not done NDC course have also been promoted to the rank of
Major General on the basis of comparative merit within the batch
keeping in view overall profile. According to the said reasons, under the
said policy for the purpose of consideration all eligible officers are
shortlisted at the first stage as per order of merit on the basis of the
qualification requirement and panel of shortlisted officer is double the
number of vacancies allocated in each Army/Service.
29. Regarding respondent No.4, respondent Nos.1 to 3 reiterated that
he was selected for NDC-50 course, however, he was admitted to R&R
Hospital for fever and leucocytosis and his absence exceeded
permissible limit of 21 days. He was taken of from NDC-50 course and
was placed in low medical category "P3 T-24" on 8th July, 2010.
Regarding his non-selection in NDC-51 course, respondent Nos.1 to 3
took a stand that he was not entitled for a second consideration having
been selected for the course in the first consideration. The other
reasons given for non-selection of the petitioner for NDC-51 course was
that he was not in an acceptable medical category on the date of
consideration by the selection board for NDC-51 on 28th October, 2010.
30. Regarding the order of the Tribunal directing consideration of
respondent No.4 for NDC-52 course, respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended
that after the dismissal of the statutory complaint of respondent No.4
dated 28th January, 2011 by order dated 17th August, 2011 he had filed
an original application No.350/2011 in which the interim order dated
12th October, 2011 was passed directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
provisionally consider respondent No.4 for nomination to NDC-52
course and the result of the consideration was not to be de-classified
during pendency of the original application filed by respondent No.4.
Since the original application of respondent No.4 was decided on 22nd
November, 2011 holding that respondent No.4 is entitled to second
look, therefore, the result of consideration was declared and as
respondent No.4 stood nominated. He had joined the said course.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 also contended that the Tribunal had directed
the respondents to allocate one additional vacancy in view of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, however, after the case
was taken up by the Military Secretary‟s Branch with Ministry of
Defence, no additional vacancy could be made available. The
respondents further contended that as per the policy dated 23rd March,
1995, an officer is entitled to second consideration only if he was not
nominated in the first consideration and since respondent No.4 was
nominated for NDC-50, therefore, he was not entitled for second
consideration. The said respondents, however, contended that in
peculiar facts and circumstances, since the Tribunal directed giving
second look to respondent No.4, the judgment of the Tribunal had been
implemented by respondent Nos.1 to 3.
31. Regarding observation of the Tribunal that in other course of
instructions where nomination is based on comparative merit and if a
candidate fails to attend the course due to extraneous reasons, he does
not forfeit authorized number of chances/considerations, respondent
Nos.1 to 3 contended that the Tribunal has not specified the course
referred to by it, nor call it upon the officers respondents to make a
submission in this regard.
32. Regarding not creating an additional vacancy for the Corps of
Engineer, respondent Nos.1 to 3 disclosed that the direction of the
Tribunal for allocation of additional vacancy was considered by the
concerned authorities as special case to protect the interest of junior
batches in case of selection of respondent No.4 to attend NDC-52
course on its own merits. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 revealed that Ministry
of Defense has stated that vacancies were still available with Army
Headquarter (i.e. one each of Engineers and Army medical Corps that
were yet to be allocated) which could be utilized to comply with the
judgment of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, no additional vacancies
could be allocated. In para 13 of the counter affidavit of respondent
Nos.1 to 3, they contended in this regard as under:-
"13. That the contents of Ground 13 (h) being contrary to
the records are denied. It is denied that Corps of Engineers
is authorised 05 vacancies for NDC-52. It is submitted that
as per pro rata allocation of vacancies to different Arms and
Services, Corps of Engineers is authorised 04 vacancies
only. In respect of directions of Hon'ble Armed Forces
Tribunal to consider allocation of additional vacancy, it is
submitted that Military Secretary's Branch had approached
the Central Government, Ministry of Defence, for allocation
of additional vacancy as a special case to protect the
interest of the junior batches in case Respondent No 4 was
selected to attend the NDC-52 on his own merit. MoD had
stated that the vacancies still available with Army HQ (i.e.
one each of Engineers and Army Medical Corps that were
yet to be allotted) may be utilized to comply with the
judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal. Consequently, DGMS
(Army) had been requested to confirm whether the vacancy
can be utilized by Military Secretary's Branch as a special
case. However, the selection of AMC officer for NDC-52 had
been completed and the vacancy already stood utilized. It is
submitted that no additional vacancy, therefore, could be
allocated."
33. Respondent No.4 also contested the writ petition contending,
inter-alia, that after the dismissal of the application of the petitioners
under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as
the parties, they could have assailed only the order of dismissal of
application for impleadment and the petitioner could not assail the
order passed by the Tribunal on the original application of respondent
No.4 wherein he had sought a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
provide him „second look‟ and if he is found higher in merit in
comparison with other Engineers who were to be considered with him,
then respondent No.4 should be nominated to attend NDC-52 course
commencing from January, 2012. Respondent No.4 also categorically
asserted that since the decision of the Tribunal has not been challenged
by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and has been rather implemented, the
petitioners cannot impugn the same or contend contrary to whatsoever
has been held by the Tribunal. Respondent No.4 also asserted that
there are no fixed vacancies for any batch of NDC and all eligible
officers are considered irrespective of their batch. He also disclosed that
in NDC-52 course it has Army Officers from 1980, 1981 and 1982
batches. Regarding the 5th vacancy being allocated, respondent No.4
contended that he could not have any objection to the same.
34. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and have
also perused the writ petition, replies and documents produced with
them and the policy dated 23rd March, 1995 and the precedents relied
on by the parties. The first plea of the petitioners is that their
application for impleadment ought not to have dismissed as their rights
were vitally affected. The Tribunal had dismissed the application of the
petitioners on the ground that whatsoever decision shall be taken in
original application No.350/2011 filed by respondent No.4 would be in
the larger interest of the organization and would meet the ends of
justice and, therefore, without commenting on the merit of the main
case, it was held that the pleas and contentions of the
petitioners/applicants in the application for impleadment cannot
withstand the legal scrutiny and therefore, rejected the application.
35. After the Tribunal declined the application of the petitioners
under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking
impleadment to the original application by order dated 22nd November,
2011, the Tribunal also disposed of the original application of
respondent No.4 on the same date by order dated 22nd November, 2011
holding that keeping in view the overall interest of the organization that
the best officers should be selected to attend the NDC Course,
respondent No.4 would be entitled for a 'second look' provided he meets
the eligibility criteria and his selection in 'First Look' will not come in
his way. The respondents have contended that the petitioners are not
entitled to file the present writ petition and they should have filed the
original application before the Tribunal challenging the order giving
„second look‟ to respondent No.4. Reliance has been placed on „K.Ajit
Babu & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 473.
36. In K.Ajit Babu (supra), relied on by the respondent no.4 certain
applicants had challenged the seniority list prepared on the basis of the
decision rendered by the Tribunal, in which case the applicants were
not the party, by filing an Original Application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act. The Tribunal had held that the persons
who were not a party to the decision but are affected by the decision of
the Tribunal are not entitled to file an application under section 19 of
the Act but could file a review petition seeking the review of the
decision adversely affecting them and the application of the applicants
under section 19 of the Act was rejected summarily. Rejection of the
original application by the Tribunal was challenged in the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court, however, had allowed the appeal filed
against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the
original application by the party who was not a party to a decision
which adversely affected them. The Supreme Court had held that
ordinarily the right of the review is available only to those who was a
party to a case even though a wider meaning can be given to the
expression "a person feeling aggrieved" occurring under Section 22 of
the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act. It was held that it is for the Tribunal
to decide whether such an aggrieved person can seek review by opening
the whole case. It was further held that the right of the review is not a
right of appeal where all questions can be decided or opened to
challenge, as the right of review is possible only on limited ground
mentioned in Order 47. The Supreme Court had further clarified that
though Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable
to the Tribunal, however, the principles contained therein have to be
extended to them. The reasoning given for the same was that there
being limitation on the power of review and in such cases it would be
an appeal and there would be no finality of a decision.
37. In Principal, Patna College, Patna (supra) relied on by the
petitioners, the Supreme Court had held that the limits of the High
Court‟s jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari are well recognized and
it is, on the whole, desirable that the requirements prescribed by
judicial decision in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in dealing with such
matter should be carefully borne in mind. The observation was made by
the Court in respect of an interim order passed by the High Court
relating to orders passed by the authorities, the Supreme Court had
held that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
should normally be very slow to pass ex-parte interim order, because
matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Educational Authorities
should normally be left to their decision and the High Court should
interfere with them only if it thinks it must do so in the interest of
justice. It was held that even if the regulation is capable of two
interpretations, it would generally be not expedient for the High Court
to reverse a decision of the Educational Authorities on the ground that
constructions placed by the said authorities on the relevant regulation
appears to the High Court less reasonable than alternative construction
which the High Court was pleased to accept. The learned counsel for
the petitioners had emphasized that the limits of High Court's
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari are well recognized and it is, on
the whole, desirable that the requirements prescribed by judicial
decisions in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in dealing with such
matters should be carefully borne in mind.
38. In B.M.Aggarwal (supra) relied on by the petitioners, a dispute
had arisen as to continuance in the office by the Vice Chancellor,
University of Allahabad, in view of the incumbent holding the office
having crossed the age of 65 years. A writ of quo warranto was filed
before the High Court which was dismissed and a special leave petition
filed against the order of the High Court was also dismissed.
Sh.B.M.Aggarwal, the appellant, filed an SLP though he had nothing to
do with the Allahabad University and the order passed regarding the
Vice Chancellor of University of Allahabad, making grievance that
judgment of the High Court contained observation that no one can be
appointed as Vice Chancellor after crossing the age of 65 years which
impacted his right also. He contended that while passing order, the
Allahabad High Court did not take into consideration the amendment
dated 24th February, 2000, where by the provisions regarding maximum
age of appointment being 65 years had been deleted, the amendment
was not taken into consideration as it was not brought to the notice of
the High Court. The apprehension of the applicant was that observation
made by the High Court in its decision pertaining to the office of the
Vice Chancellor of University of Allahabad would come in the way of
anyone who has crossed the age of 65 years being considered for
appointment for the post of Vice Chancellor. Locus standi of the said
applicant B.M.Aggarwal, was challenged which was repelled by the
Supreme Court holding that observation of the High Court does impact
the said applicant and therefore, he has a justification for filing the
appeal. The Supreme Court, therefore, passed the order by clarifying
that appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor shall not be influenced
by the observation made by the High Court in its judgment regarding
continuance of the Vice Chancellor of the University of Allahabad who
had crossed the age of 65 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that since the direction by the Tribunal in its order dated
22nd November, 2011 to consider respondent No.4 for NDC-52 course
will impact his right, therefore, he is entitled to maintain the present
writ petition.
39. The petitioners had sought impleadment to original application
No.350/2011 filed by respondent No.4 seeking „second look‟ as after
the „first look‟ though he was selected but on account of the losing his
medical category on account of cancer, he could not complete the NDC-
50 course and on regaining the medical category Shape-I, he sought a
„second look‟. The petitioners in their application under Order 1 Rule
10 had contended that they were shortlisted officers for NDC-52 course
commencing w.e.f. January, 2012. They had further asserted that they
being in the zone of consideration for the 4 th vacancy are vitally
interested in the outcome of the original application filed by respondent
No.4, therefore, they are necessary parties and should be impleaded as
a party to the original application filed by respondent No.4. The
Tribunal had dismissed their application on the ground that the
decision in the original application filed by respondent No.4 should be
in the larger interest of the organization and in order to meet the ends
of justice, and therefore, without observing and commenting on the
merit of the main case of the petitioners in their application, the
application of the petitioners could not withstand the legal scrutiny.
40. Reasoning of the Tribunal that the contentions of the petitioners
in their application for impleadment does not withstand the legal
scrutiny, is incomprehensible in the facts and circumstances. The
petitioners had filed an application for impleadment on the ground that
NDC course is an important career milestone and on qualifying it, an
officer is given weightage of 0.75 marks for promotion to the rank of
Major General and they being in the zone of consideration for the 4 th
vacancy, therefore, the consideration of respondent No.4 for the 4 th
vacancy will adversely affect them, and therefore, they should be also
heard as to whether respondent No.4 shall be entitled for the „second
look‟ or not.
41. Whether the petitioners should have been impleaded as parties
to the original application filed by the respondent no.4 before the
Tribunal? Order 1 Rule 10 specially provides in the Code of Civil
Procedure to meet situation so as to implead all the parties which may
be affected by any litigation so that the rendering of justice is not
hampered. Respondent No.4 as an applicant though was dominus litus,
however, he was bound to sue every possible adverse claimant in his
petition to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and needless expenses and
he should have joined all persons against whom his right of relief
existed. If respondent no.4 had not impleaded all the persons who
could be impacted by the decision of the Tribunal, still the Tribunal
was not helpless in such circumstances. Where a claimant does not
implead all the necessary parties, the Tribunal could direct such a
claimant to be impleaded as a party to the petition as under Rule 10, it
is open to the Tribunal to add any person at any stage of the
proceedings, which is a necessary or a proper party or a person whose
presence before the Tribunal may be necessary in order to enable the
Tribunal to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all
the questions involved in the matter. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a
wide discretion to meet every case of defects of a party and is not
affected by the inaction of the claimant to bring the necessary or a
proper party on record. A necessary party is one without whom, no
order can be made effectually and a proper party is one in whose
absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is
necessary for complete and final decision on the question involved in
the matter.
42. In order to ascertain whether a person is a necessary party or not
what is to be seen is whether in absence of such person, conflicting
order may be passed by the Tribunal or not. The only reason which
makes it necessary to make a person party to an action is so that he
should be bound by the reasoning of the action and the question to be
settled. The question to be settled must be a question in the action
which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.
A line has to be drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the
direct interest or legal interest and commercial interest. To be
impleaded as a party the person seeking impleadment must be directly
or legally interested in the action.
43. Appling these principles, it is apparent that the petitioners were
vitally interested in the decision whether respondent No.4 was entitled
for the „second look‟ or not, as it would have impacted their career
prospect and selection for the NDC-52 course. In the circumstances, it
is inevitable to infer that the petitioners were necessary and in any
case proper party to the original application filed by respondent No.4
seeking „second look‟ though he had exhausted his „first look‟. In the
circumstances, the order of the Tribunal declining the prayer of the
petitioners that their application does not withstand the legal scrutiny
was not justifiable and the Tribunal should have impleaded the
petitioners as parties to the original application filed by respondent
No.4 for their impleadment.
44. However, in the circumstances, whether the order of the Tribunal
in the original application being OA No.350/2011 is to be set aside as
the petitioners are held to be necessary parties and the Tribunal
should be directed to implead them as the parties and then the
Tribunal should be directed to decide the matter afresh or their pleas
and contentions can be heard by this Court as the petitioners have also
challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in the original application
of respondent No.4 and not only the order dated 22nd November, 2011
dismissing their application for their impleadment in original
application No.350/2011.
45. The plea of the respondent no.4 that the petitioners are not
entitled to maintain the writ petition against the order dated 22nd
November, 2011 passed in his original application and they should file
an independent original application cannot be accepted and for the
foregoing reasons as the petitioners were necessary parties in the facts
and circumstances. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
maintainable and is to be considered and decided on merits. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances, it is also not appropriate to remand
the matter to the Tribunal to implead the petitioners as party to the
original application of the respondent no.4 and to decide the original
application of the respondent no.4.
46. The petitioners have claimed that an additional vacancy for the
Corps of Engineers for NDC-52 Course or at least to give 5th vacancy to
which the Corps of Engineers is entitled. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have
contested the prayer of the petitioners for creation of an additional
vacancy for the Corps of Engineer for NDC-52 course or at least to give
5th vacancy to the Corps of Engineer to which the said Corp is allegedly
entitled on the ground that pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal,
respondent Nos.1 to 3 had considered allocating one additional
vacancy in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the
case was taken up by the Military Secretary/Branch with Ministry of
Defense for allocation of one additional vacancy. Respondent Nos.1 to 3
have contended that considering the facts and circumstances, no
additional vacancy could be made available.
47. The Tribunal by order dated 22nd November, 2011 had directed
respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the allocation of one additional
vacancy to the Army, without doing this as a precedent, as a one time
measure, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
should respondent No.4 be selected to attend NDC-52 course on his
own merit. The directions of the Tribunal were not that in case
respondent No.4 is selected to attend NDC-52 course on his own
merits, then respondent Nos.1 to 3 had to allocate one more vacancy to
the Corps of the petitioners. In the circumstances, since respondent
Nos.1 to 3 had considered about allocating one more vacancy to the
Army after respondent No.4 was selected to attend NDC-52 course, the
petitioners cannot contend that one more vacancy ought to have been
allocated to the Army. This cannot be disputed that the vacancy on
NDC course are allotted on the basis of the pro rata sharing according
to which Corp of Engineers are entitled. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have
also disclosed that the request received from various heads of
Armies/Services are examined before finalizing of allocation of vacancy
and thereafter, vacancies are allocated on pro rata share basis.
48. This is also apparent from the pleas taken by respondent Nos.1
to 3 that only in case of non-availability of suitable official from some
other Army/Service for a particular course, an additional vacancy can
be allocated to the particular Corp. The petitioners‟ allegation is not
that the suitable officers are not available in other Army/Service and in
the circumstances, if respondent Nos.1 to 3 have considered about
allocating of additional vacancy and has declined the same, the
petitioners are not entitled to claim that an additional vacancy must be
created for the Corps of Engineer. The plea of the petitioners in this
respect is therefore, declined. The decision of the respondent nos.1 to 3
to decline the request of the petitioners cannot be faulted in the facts
and circumstances. Merely because the respondent no.4 was given a
„second look' also cannot be ground for claiming additional vacancy by
the petitioners.
49. Whether respondent no.4 was entitled for „second look‟ or not,
the Tribunal in its order dated 22nd November, 2011 in Original
Application No.350/2011 has held as under:-
"21. We have ascertained that in other courses of
instructions where nomination is based on comparative
merit/entrance examination, a candidate who fails to
attend the course due to extraneous reasons does not
forfeit his authorised provided number of
chances/considerations. Therefore, in all fairness the
applicant needs to be given another chance to be
considered for selection to the NDC Course, provided he
meets the eligibility criteria.
22. We have further considered the impact on the
environment by giving the applicant a second look. The
very fact that should the applicant be given a
consideration and is selected, it will imply that the
applicant is higher in comparative merit and as such
likely to be promoted to the next rank. Training such an
officer who is likely to be promoted, due to his standing
in the comparative merit will be beneficial to the
organisation in the long term. Thus, the 'aim' set forth
for the course will be met.
23. We have also considered the argument that giving the
applicant a 'Second Look' will deprive another officer a
chance to do NDC. We strongly consider that merely giving
'Second Look' does not mean that the applicant is selected
or nominated. He has to meet the eligibility criteria and has
to be high enough in the comparative merit. This
consideration to the applicant, should he be nominated,
will deprive another officer of the chance to do NDC is thus
not correct. Therefore, it cannot be said to be giving the
applicant an unfair advantage over the officer who is not
nominated to attend NDC-52.
24. ..........
25. Considering the facts and ailment suffered by the
applicant which was beyond his control and has been
declared as attributable to Military Service by medical
authorities, we feel that denying him the second look is in a
form of penalty rather than giving the officer a favourable
consideration of having suffered this ailment attributable to
Military Service. Thus, we hold that the applicant was
entitled for the 'Second Look'. The selection in the 'First
Look' was not completed due to his illness beyond his
control and attributable to military service. Therefore, he
cannot be blamed for not completing the course.
26. ............
27. Keeping in view the overall interest of the
organisation, which specifically translates to the best
officer to be selected to attend the NDC Course, we are of
the opinion that the applicant needs to be given a 'second
look' provided he meets the eligibility criteria. His 'First
Look' will not come in the way. Since the consideration for
NDC-52 was to take place on 13.10.2011 as per the
assertions made by the applicant as well as the
respondents, we had issued an interim order dated
12.10.2011 to consider the applicant subject to outcome of
this petition. Now the OA has been finalised, the
respondents are directed to proceed accordingly as per the
outcome of his consideration. In case he is selected and
found meritorious, he should be detailed on the course
NDC-52. The interim order stands disposed off."
50. The Tribunal, therefore, held that in other Courses of Instructions
where a candidate fails to attend or complete the course due to
extraneous reasons, the candidate does not forfeit his authorized
number of chances/considerations. The Tribunal also considered the
impact of giving a „second look‟ to the respondent No.4, as he had not
been able to complete the course on account of reasons beyond his
control. The Tribunal has also held that even if an officer has not been
able to complete the course after getting selected in first consideration,
if he is given a „second look‟ on the comparative merit, then such an
officer will be beneficial to the organization in the long term. The
Tribunal also held that merely giving 'second look' does not mean that
respondent No.4 was to be selected or nominated on the basis of first
consideration, as he had to meet eligibility criteria and had to be high
enough in the comparative merit list of those who were to be considered
for NDC-52 course.
51. Though, respondent Nos.1 to 3 had contended that respondent
No.4 was not entitled for the `second look' under the policy, however,
they have not challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 22nd
November, 2011 passed in OA No.350/2011. If the direction of the
Tribunal to consider respondent No.4 for the `second look' was contrary
to the policy dated 23rd March, 1995 for any reason, in that case the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 ought to have challenged such direction instead
of implementing it. After implementing it, respondent Nos.1 to 3 now
cannot contend that policy contemplates that a `second look' cannot be
given to an officer who is selected after consideration on `first look' but
who is not able to complete the course on account of the extraneous
reasons or reasons not attributable to him.
52. The Tribunal drew the comparison with other courses where
nomination is based on comparative merit/entrance examination and in
which courses, if a candidate fails to complete the course due to
extraneous reasons or the reason not imputable to him, such
candidates do not forfeit their number of chances and considerations.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in their reply to the writ petition have asserted
that the Tribunal has not specified the course in which a candidate
after failing to complete a course because of the reasons not imputable
to him does not forfeit his number of chances and consideration. The
observation of the Tribunal must have been based on whatsoever was
submitted before it and cannot be faulted on the ground that such
courses have not been detailed by the Tribunal. Though respondent
Nos.1 to 3 have contended that criteria for each course for nomination
can be different and policy on two courses cannot be equated, however,
it was for respondent Nos.1 to 3 to have given details of the course in
which after failing to complete a course for extraneous reasons, an
officer is not entitled to remaining chances/considerations available to
him.
53. No rational reason is given by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and even by
the petitioners that an officer who is selected in the "first look" but who
is not able to complete the course because of the reasons not
attributable to him, and beyond his control, will not be entitled for a
„second look' except that in the earlier course on account of such an
eventuality one seat is wasted.
54. If an officer who is not selected in a particular course, is entitled
for reconsideration on merit for a „second look' i.e. reconsideration on
merit for a subsequent course, an officer who is selected in the „first
look‟ but who is not able to complete the course for the reasons beyond
his control, a fortiori will be entitled for reconsideration on merit for the
subsequent course. From the perusal of the policy of respondent Nos.1
to 3, it is apparent that there is no specific stipulation that in case an
officer selected for a course does not complete it for any reasons, even
reasons beyond his control, he will not be considered for nomination for
the subsequent course on the basis of his comparative merit.
55. An officer who is selected in the „first look‟ but who is not able to
complete the course for the reasons beyond his control cannot be
considered lower in merit to another candidate who is not even selected
in the „first look‟. A candidate who is selected in the `first look',
therefore, shall be entitled for a `second look' on merit.
56. The reasoning given by the petitioners that because of non-
completion of the course by an officer who was selected in first attempt,
because one seat is wasted and therefore, he will not be entitled for a
„second look' for a subsequent course does not appear to be a cogent
reason in the facts and circumstances. The objective is to have the best
officer selected on merits which is ultimately beneficial to the
organization in the long term as has also been reasoned by the
Tribunal.
57. The Tribunal has held that the fact that ailment suffered by
respondent No.4 was beyond his control and was attributable to
Military Service as had been held even by medical authorities. In the
circumstances denying him the `second look' would have been in the
form of penalty rather than giving respondent No.4 a favorable
consideration and thus, allowing him a `second look' on merit cannot be
faulted on any of the grounds raised by the petitioners and respondent
nos. 1 to 3.
58. For the foregoing reasons and in the facts and circumstances, the
petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 3 have failed to make out any
illegality, irregularity or such perversity in the order of the Tribunal
dated 22nd November, 2011 in OA No.350/2011 which was filed by
respondent No.4 where respondent Nos.1 to 3 were directed to give a
`second look' to respondent No.4 provided he met the eligibility criteria
for NDC-52 Course. The order dated 22nd November, 2011 does not
require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts and
circumstances. This was also disclosed during the arguments that
respondent No.4 pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal was considered
on merit and has joined NDC-52 Course.
59. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is without any
merit and it is therefore, dismissed and all the pending applications
also disposed of. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
J.R.MIDHA, J.
JULY 5, 2012
„k‟
