Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Sanskar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3626 of 2021
Decided On : 03-09-2021
The court affirmed that candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, and procedural adherence is paramount in vacancy management.
Headnote:(A) Army Act, 1950 - Procedure for Processing of Resignations - Instructions dated 26.07.2000 and 19.07.2018 - Writ petition filed for issuance of joining letter for pre-commission training - Petitioner argued for entitlement to vacancy after prior candidate's resignation - Court emphasized that no indefeasible right exists for appointment despite vacancy and that instructions dictate timeliness for replacement - Resultantly, the issuance of the joining letter to the petitioner was rightly denied as the vacancy was not created in time due to procedural delays. (Paras 19, 22, 24)
(B) Right to Petition - The court confirmed that delays in processing do not create rights unless specified by instruction; arbitrary denial but ruled that the authorities exercised discretion appropriately. (Paras 24, 25)
(C) Distinguishing cases - The peculiar facts surrounding other candidates' admissions were ruled irrelevant in this context. (Paras 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner aspired to join the Indian Army's OTA under the JAG Entry Scheme and was placed in the merit list. After one candidate withdrew, he claimed he should be offered the position.
Findings of Court:
The court held there was no merit in the petition as applicable procedures were not followed in resignations and no vacancy was deemed to exist.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a joining letter and the effectiveness of timings regarding the vacancy process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled procedural adherence must be respected, underscoring that no indefeasible rights arise from potential vacancies.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for joining letter after vacancy (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments for late induction and discrimination (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. respondents' defense and procedure explanation (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court analysis of vacancy creation and induction periods (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. distinction and implications of arbitrary denial (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. final dismissal with no costs (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to issue a joining letter to the petitioner allowing him to join the pre-commission training at the Officers Training Academy (hereinafter referred to as `OTA'), Chennai as a Gentlemen Cadet against the 6th vacancy allotted to the 25th Course of JAG Entry Scheme.
2. In the Writ Petition it is the case of the petitioner that online applications were invited by the respondents to join the Indian Army under the JAG Entry Scheme 25th Course (OCT 2020) as Short Service Commission (Non-Technical) Course for law graduates (men and women) (hereinafter referred to as `25th Course of the JAG Entry Scheme'), against six vacancies ear-marked for men and two vacancies for women.
3. The petitioner applied against the said vacancies and upon being short-listed, was called to appear before the Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as `SSB') for an interview. The merit list was published by the respondents on 10.11.2020 wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial Number 9 in the order of merit.
4. Eleven candidates, including the petitioner, who were successful at the SSB interview, were subjected to a medical examination wherein two candidates, placed at Serial Numbers 3 and 7 in the merit list, were found medically unfit.
5. The top six candidates on the merit list were required to undergo pre-commission training at OTA, Chennai with effect from 10.01.2021.
6. The petitioner later learnt that the candidate placed at the 6th position in the merit list, namely Mr. Pravesh Naveriya, voluntarily withdrew himself from the OTA, Chennai and was accordingly allowed to leave the Academy on 01.02.2021.
7. The petitioner claimed that on withdrawal of the said candidate, the petitioner should have been issued a joining letter as the 6th candidate in the order of merit. As the joining letter was not issued, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been admitted by the respondents that the last date for joining the pre-commission training for the candidates who were successful in the 25th Course of the JAG Entry Scheme was 11.01.2021.
9. He submits that it is further admitted by the respondents that Mr. Naveriya had put in his application for resignation on 27.01.2021, which was approved by the Commandant, OTA, Chennai on 28.01.2021, which was the 18th day of the training. He submits that in terms of the instructions dated 26.07.2000, midway induction of candidates at OTA, Chennai is permitted up to three weeks of start of training. He submits that, therefore, as the vacancy had arisen on the 18th day, the respondents should have offered the joining letter to the petitioner in terms of the above instructions. He submits that delay on part of the Commandant, OTA in informing the Directorate Admission of this vacancy cannot prejudice the petitioner as the petitioner had a right to be offered this vacancy.
10. He submits that in fact, though the last day of joining OTA, Chennai was 11.01.2021, the candidates remained in quarantine for 14 days due to COVID-19 and their training actually commenced with effect from 25.01.2021. He submits that therefore; the period of 21 days is to be counted only from 25.01.2021.
11. He further submits that another candidate, namely Mr. Abhimanyu Dhaka, belonging to Non-Technical Entry Group was allowed to join pre-c
