The court affirmed that ignorance of law is no excuse and upheld the validity of the Policy of 1996 for Permanent Commission, emphasizing that policy decisions in military contexts are not subject to judicial review unless proven arbitrary.

Judgment :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. By way of this Special Appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the appellant (writ petitioner) lays a challenge to the judgment dated 26.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1010/2019, dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant (writ petitioner).

2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the appellant was commissioned on 01.03.2006 as Short Service Commissioned officer (SSCO) in the Army Dental Corps (AD Corps). The said appointment of the appellant, as SSCO, was initially for a period of five years, extendable by further five years, followed by last extension of four years, i.e. total service tenure of 14 years.

2.1. The appellant was granted two extensions, and was continuing till passing of the impugned order and his term was to expire in the year 2020.

2.2. As per the Army Manual, amended from time to time, three opportunities, by way of a Departmental Examination for grant of Permanent Commission to an SSCO, were prescribed.

2.3. Being desirous and willing for grant of Permanent Commission, the appellant appeared in the requisite Departmental Examination, comprised of Clinical Test and Interview, in the years 2008, 2009 & 2011, in the meanwhile, but failed in all the said three attempts, thereby his opportunities to get the Permanent Commission as an SSCO, stood exhausted.

3. To be specific, a communication dated 10.06.1996 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) was addressed by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi to the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services, New Delhi, while endorsing a copy thereof to the Director General of Medical Services (Army), Director General of Medical Services (Navy) & Director General of Medical Services (Air Force), which was a Policy with regard to ‘Procedure to be followed by the AD Corps Selection Board For Selection of Officers for Appointment to Commission in the Army Dental Corps’ (henceforth referred to as ‘Policy of 1996’), to be followed, in particularly, for selection of SSCO for Permanent Commission in the AD Corps.

3.1. While following the said policy and after examination of the contents of the Statutory complaint of the appellant submitted on 12.07.2016, it was observed in the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence that the claim of the appellant was devoid of merit as he did not make it to the merit list of the Departmental Examination when evaluated against the laid down criteria. It was also mentioned therein that the office’s apprehension that he has not been granted Permanent Commission due to under assessment in the Delayed CR 2010-11 was misplaced, as the CR Profile was not included in the parameters considered by the Board for grant of Permanent Commission.

3.2. The appellant (writ petitioner) was aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 11.04.2017 and the Policy of 1996 (to the extent of criteria adopted for departmental examination), the appellant has preferred the writ petition. As reflected from the record, the appellant was seeking consideration of his case for Permanent Commission on the basis of Policy dated 24.02.2012 forwarded vide letter dated 20.03.2012 i.e. Revision of Criteria for Grant of Permanent Commission to Short Service Commissioned Officers (hereinafter referred to as ‘Policy of 2012’), while pointing out, amongst others, that the said Policy provides for consideration of performance of the Officer, Special Achievements, Honours, Awards etc., but in contrast, the Policy of 1996 prescribes a single clear test criteria for the purpose of granting Permanent Commission to an SSCO. Thus, while impugning the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents and seeking consideration of his case in light of the Policy of 2012, the appellant has preferred the writ petition (registered as S.B. Civ