Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
HAV (OFC) RWMWI Borgoyary & Ors. Etc. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 8986- 8988 of 2019
Decided on : 06-12-2019
(A) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Right to equality – Right to equality cannot be claimed in a case where a benefit has been given to a person contrary to law – If a mistake has been committed by the authorities in appointing few persons who were not eligible, claim cannot be made by other ineligible persons seeking a direction to authorities to appoint them in violation of instructions – There is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India. (Para 13)
(B) Service Law – Appointment – As Technical Equipment Officers (TEO) in Army – Appellants had applied and participated in selection conducted for posts of Record Officer and TEOs cannot be permitted to challenge Instructions of 2007 – Appellants were aware of Instructions of 2007 – Appellants were considered for post of Record Officers and were not selected due to lack of merit – No objection was raised by Appellants during process of selection – Selection to post of Technical Equipment Officer requires standards of high order and training in trade of Operator Fire Control (OFC) is no substitute for qualification of Technical Instructor Fire Control (AD & FD) – Appellants who do not have qualification of Technical Instructor Fire Control (AD & FD) cannot claim appointment to post of TEO in Air Defence Branch – Appellants cannot, as a matter of right, claim appointment on the basis of two ineligible persons being given benefit and no direction can be given to Respondents to perpetuate illegality – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 11, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Instant Appeals arise from judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 08.08.2018 dismissing applications filed by Appellants for quashing order dated 23.03.2007, by which Appellants were declared ineligible for appointment as Technical Equipment Officers (TEO). Tribunal held that training for trade of Operator Fire Control (OFC) cannot be a substitute for qualification of Technical Instructor Fire Control (AD & FD) as the latter requires much more capability, skill and training as compared to the former. Tribunal was of the opinion that the Appellants were not entitled to seek parity with a few appointments which were made due to a mistake.
Findings of Court:
Appellants are not entitled to the relief claimed. There is no merit in the submission made by counsel for the Appellants that the Army Order Nos.84 and 85 issued on 12.10.1974 have to be followed and Instructions issued on 17.01.2007 should be ignored. The Instructions issued on 17.01.2007 are in addition to the Instructions dated 12.10.1974. Moreover, Appellants had applied and participated in selection conducted for the posts of Record Officer and TEOs cannot be permitted to challenge Instructions of 2007.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
L. Nageswara Rao, J.
These Appeals arise from the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 08.08.2018 dismissing the applications filed by the Appellants for quashing the order dated 23.03.2007, by which the Appellants were declared ineligible for appointment as Technical Equipment Officers (TEO).
2. Pankaj Negi- Appellant was enrolled in the Army Air Defence as Soldier Technical and was selected for the trade of Operation Fire Control while working as Havildar. He cleared Class I grade of his Technical Trade "Operation Fire Control" (OFC) in 2009. He also secured a diploma in Radar Technology, Surveillance, Electronic Warfare and Equipment Management from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in 2011.
3. Deepak Kumar Mishra-Appellant was enrolled in the Army Air Defence as Soldier Technical and cleared Class I grade of his Technical Trade "Operation Fire Control" (OFC) while working as Havildar from 04.08.2007. He cleared his Weapon Training Course (PWN) on 27.12.2010. He was awarded diploma in Radar Technology, Surveillance, Electronic Warfare and Equipment Management from IGNOU in 2011. During the course of his service, he was a recipient of "Veerta Patra" and "Commandant's Appreciation".
4. Rwmwi Borgoyary- Appellant was also enrolled in Army Air Defence as Solider Technical and was promoted as Havildar. He cleared his diploma in Network Administration and Cyber Security. He also cleared Cyberoam Certified Network and Security Professional - CNSP Course in December, 2011. He was awarded diploma in Radar Technology, Surveillance, Electronic Warfare and Equipment Management from IGNOU.
5. In January/ February, 2016, seven vacancies for Record Officers and eight vacancies for Technical Equipment Officer (TEO) in AAD were notified. The Appellants applied for being considered to the said posts. The Appellants were permitted to undergo the selection process after which they were informed by a communication dated 23.03.2017 that they were found ineligible for being considered for TEO (AAD) category. The Appellants submitted a representation to their Commanding Officer requesting him to take up their case at the appropriate level. The OC Troops (Col A) / Commanding Officer recommended the case of the Appellants to the Director General of the Army Air Defence Regiment and requested him to direct the concerned officer to consider the Appellants for the post of TEO as they were eligible. As the pre-commissioning training was scheduled to commence, the Appellants filed Original Applications (OA) before the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") which were dismissed. Their Applications for seeking Leave to Appeal were also dismissed.
6. The Respondents contended before the Tribunal that the eligibility criteria for Special List (SL) category were given at Appendix 'A' to AG's Branch/ MP-2 letter dated 17.01.2007. Para 2 dealt with the Technical Equipment Officers (AAD). The eligibility criteria is as follows:
"2. Technical Equipment Officer (Arty) & Technical Equipment Officer (AAD):
(a) Qualification. Senior School Certificate Exam Class XI (CBSE Pattern) or equivalent.
(b) Service. Minimum 10 years of service on 01 Jul of the year in which the applications are invited.
(c) JCOs/ NCOs from AIG (FD), AIG (CB), AIG (ADO) and TIFC (AD & FD) category or Clk/ SKsT Grade-I with five years experience in accounting/ holding of Army Eqpt/ Stores."
7. It was further contended on behalf of the Respondent that the qualification of TIFC (AD & FD) which is acquired only after selection for the course and a ten month long training at AD College, followed by gaining experience as an instructor is compulsory. The Respondent's response to the submission made on behalf of the Appellants that other similarly placed persons were appointed as TEOs was that an error was committed in making a few appointments and the Appellants were not entitled to be appointed as they were ineligible.
8. The Tribunal held
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
