Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Rahul Subash S/o Subash Babu – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 28947 of 2022
Decided On : 22-12-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: B. Vinod, I.V. Pramod, Saira Souraj P., Sajeena Abdu T.K.
For the Respondents: A.S.P. Kurup, Manu S.
Courts should refrain from interfering with policy decisions related to national security, and legitimate expectation for appointment in the armed forces is not conferred by participation in recruitment processes.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Recruitment - Indian Army - Agniveer Scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a recruitment notification and continue the earlier recruitment process for the Indian Army. They argued that the new Agniveer Scheme undermined their legitimate expectation to be recruited and was arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the decision to implement the Agniveer Scheme was a policy decision by the Government of India, aimed at addressing the peculiar border situation and threats from hostile neighboring nations. The Court emphasized that in matters concerning national security, policy decisions should be left to the government, and courts should refrain from interfering unless fundamental rights are infringed.
Issues: The issues involved the legitimacy of the Agniveer Scheme, the petitioners' legitimate expectation for recruitment, and the propriety of the government's decision in recruitment to the Indian Armed Forces.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that participation in a recruitment rally or written examination does not confer any right on the candidates, and legitimate expectation for appointment as Jawans through the regular stream was unacceptable. The decision to implement the Agniveer Scheme was based on considerations of geographical terrains and military models of other countries.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
N. NAGARESH, J.
1. The petitioners, who are aspirants for enlistment in Indian Army, seek to quash Ext.P10 and to direct the respondents to continue the earlier recruitment process commenced by Exts.P1 and P2 irrespective of Ext.P10. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P10 Recruitment Rally Notification for appointment as Agniveer General Duty, Agniveer Technical, Agniveer Clerk/Store Keeper Technical and Agniveer Personnel.
2. The petitioners state that they have applied pursuant to notifications dated 21.10.2020 and 18.12.2020 for recruitment in Indian Army. They have cleared the recruitment rally held before the lockdown in 2020. The petitioners have cleared Medical Examination. Written Examination was, however, postponed from time to time. According to the petitioners, the Union Government had committed before the Parliament that they will finalise the recruitment already commenced.
3. To the surprise of the petitioners, the Government of India cancelled the recruitment process and framed a new Scheme called Agnipath Scheme for recruitment to Military Service. The Scheme modified only the age limit and maximum age limit to 21 years and for the present year, the upper age limit was relaxed to two years. The service conditions including pay and pension were altered substantially.
4. The petitioners state that having undergone the recruitment rally, they have legitimate expectation to be recruited to Indian Army. Ext.P10 notification for recruitment as Agniveers has undermined their legitimate expectation. The petitioners contend that after holding recruitment to Military, the abandonment of the same is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The Government of India cannot, without appropriate legislation or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, substitute permanent soldiers with temporary staff.
5. The petitioners argued that making the Army young by reducing the recruitment age is unscientific. The Government has miserably failed to assess the social impact that could possibly caused by trained unemployed youth aged 21 to 25 years. Agniveers, who get enlisted in the forces will find it difficult to settle into a married life since they have only a temporary job for four years.
6. Short term training of Agniveers will only make them tough and not responsible. The ex-servicemen now in service are responsible soldiers because they have served ten or more years and secured comfortably shouldering family responsibilities. The Government of India has considered only fiscal advantages and has ignored the social impact. Life of Agniveers in barracks is not addressed while taking the crucial decision. Ext.P10 is therefore liable to be set aside and the respondents are compellable to continue the earlier recruitment process commenced as per Exts.P1 and P2.
7. The Deputy Solicitor General of India entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, the Deputy Solicitor General urged that the Scheme of Agniveers was framed taking into account the peculiar border situation and incessant threats made by hostile neighbouring nations to infiltrate the borders of India. Geographical terrain of India inclusive of mountain ranges, swampy marshes, jungles, deserts, riverine and glaciated regions as well as isolated island territories forced the Government to establish a more youthful, agile and physically fit Armed Forces which is well equipped to deal with such terrains.
8. The Deputy Solicitor General of India pointed out that the average age of officers of the Armed Forces was 32 years as opposed to the global average of 26 years. The Agniveer Scheme is intended to have a force of young Jawans, Sailors and Airmen between the age of 18 to 25 years, supervised by experienced regular cadre personnel. While taking a decision in the matter, deliberations were held and studies were conducted. Military “intake and retention” models of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and France were
