GUARDSMAN NANAR RAM Vs. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was enrolled in the army as an Infantry man on 9/03/1988.He is matric fail. Minimum qualification for appointment to the post of infantry manis matriculation therefore in normal course, petitioner could not have beenappointed to this post as he did not fulfil the minimum educational qualificationrequired for the post of Infantry man. However, it is the case of the petitioner that atthe time of his recruitment, he had produced matric fail certificate and therefore thisfact was duly conveyed to the recruiting authority and notwithstanding this fact, thepetitioner was recruited as Infantry man. He served for 7 years and 228 days andthereafter on 22/10/1995 he was illegally discharged from service underItem lll(v), Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules, 1954 as shown in the discharge bookPetitioner submitted statutory complaint dated 13th November, 1995 to Army rmy Chielwith copy to various other authorities but it did not evoke any response. Instead aneight paged, casually signatured discharge book without date was issued to thepetitioner. Petitioner sent legal notice dated 12/12/1996 which alsoremained unreplied. Reminders dated 7/08/1997 was sent. This also met thesame fate. Petitioner sent another reminder dated 11/08/1998. Again withsame result. At this stage, the present writ petition was filed seeking quashing ofdischarge order dated 22/10/1995 and also claiming reinstatement withconsequential benefits as well as damages. Petitioner also pressed for action to betaken by respondent no. 1 against the guilty who have discharged the petitioner fromservice and contends that this act is malafide and arbitrary.

(2.) The main grounds on which the action is challenged are the following:-

(3.) On the other hand, submission of the respondents, as reflected from the counteraffidavit as well as reply and written submissions, are as follows:-