WG. CDR. RAVI KHANDELWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition impugns order dated 10th February, 2020 passed in OA No.1548/2019 whereby the said OA was dismissed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (AFT). The said OA was filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioner, a serving Wing Commander in Indian Air Force having date of birth as 24.07.1983, applied for grant of Short Service Commission (SSC) in Army Medical Corps (AMC) on the basis of advertisement published in December, 2007. The said advertisement, inter alia, provided that on completion of two years service, SSC Officers are eligible for Departmental Permanent Commission provided they have not attained the age of 30 years on 31st December, 2007. The petitioner was granted SSC on 25th April, 2008. In terms of the aforesaid provision of the advertisement, the petitioner upon completion of two years of service as an SSC Medical Officer, applied for permanent commission. However, the Selection Board held in December, 2010 and in June, 2011, did not grant permanent commission to the petitioner as he failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the interview. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for the third time for the said permanent commission in 2013 and 2017, however in view of the fact that the petitioner had crossed the age limit of 30 years as on 31st December of the year of receipt of application the petitioner was not allowed to appear before the permanent commission Selection Board. The petitioner submitted representations dated 7th May, 2016 and 26th February, 2019 which were rejected on 9th August, 2016 and 4 th April, 2019 respectively. The petitioner also filed Statutory Complaints dated 26th October, 2017 and 25th June, 2018 under Section 27 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (the Act) which were rejected on 1st October, 2018 and 23rd July, 2018 respectively. Aggrieved by the rejection orders, 2019, the petitioner approached the AFT by filing the aforesaid OA from which the present petition arises.

(3.) The said OA was contested by the respondents, who filed a counter affidavit in response to the OA. The said OA was dismissed by the AFT vide the impugned order, observing/holding that (i) no SSC Officer can claim Permanent Commission as a matter of right, they only have a right to be considered in terms of the extant Rules; (ii) the petitioner applied for permanent commission twice in 2010 and 2011, but failed to qualify; (iii) thereafter the petitioner applied for third attempt at permanent commission in 2013 and 2017, but the same was rejected on account of the petitioner being overage i.e. more than 30 years; (iv) in terms of Paragraph 1(b)(ii) of Army Instruction (AI) No.74/76, serving AMC Officers would be eligible to take up AMC Examination for grant of Permanent Commission provided they are within the age limit (30 years) on 31st December of the year of receipt of application; (v) the petitioner was therefore not eligible for permanent commission in terms of the aforesaid Rules/Instruction at the time of his third attempt; (vi) merely because there was an inadvertent error in the advertisement of December, 2007 , the petitioner cannot claim eligibility for permanent commission on the ground that he happened to be below 30 years on 31st December, 2007 and therefore not overage; (vii) the error in advertisement cannot overrule the basic terms and conditions of the service as provided by the aforesaid Army Instruction. Reliance was placed on the decision dated 28.05.2009 in OA No. 312 of 2011 titled as Capt. Prabhat Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India given by a Coordinate Bench of the AFT on 28th May, 2012; (viii) the mistake in the advertisement was corrected by the respondents in 2009 by issuing a letter dated 15th June, 2009, in terms of which the chance was given to all the officers who had missed consideration for permanent commission without even availing a single chance. Since the petitioner had already availed two chances to apply for permanent commission, he was not entitled for an additional chance; and, (ix) decision dated 11.09.2018 in O.A No. 775 of 2015 titled as Surg Lt Cdr Rohit Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors. was specific to facts and circumstances of that case and could not be applied in the present case.