CHAMAN SINGH MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's brother Constable Kailash Chand Mehta posted at B.S.F. Headquarter at New Delhi submitted petitioner's application for recruitment as Constable (GD) in BSF by granting condonation in education, as he was only 9th pass and for condonation in age as he was stated to be over-age by six months. Before this application dated 2.2.1995 could be considered, the petitioner was advised, to appear before a duly constituted recruitment Board, through letter dated 1.3.1995 at BSF Campus, Chawla on 13.3.1995. Petitioner was tested by the Board of officers, which declared him fit, subject to grant of multiple condonations on the following counts:

(2.) Petitioner's case along with others, for grant of condonations, was submitted to the Competent Authority and it is the respondents' version that due to some mistake, condonation for age in the case of the petitioner was not mentioned in the note sheet. The Director General, BSF granted the requisite condonations to the petitioner with regard to his chest measurement, which was short by 01 cm. and in educational qualification, being 9th pass. It is respondents' case that call letter was issued to the petitioner through an oversight, attributable to clerical mistake. Petitioner on 21.6.1995 reported at Headquarter, 25 Bn. BSF, where he was informed by the Commandant that condonation of age in respect of the petitioner had not been received from the Competent Authority Petitioner's case was again submitted for condonation to the Competent Authority and it was on 23.7.1995 that Petitioner's case was rejected by the Competent Authority and the condonations awarded earlier were also withdrawn. It is this action of the respondents, which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) In so far as the matter of condonation is concerned, the same cannot be claimed as of right. It has to be granted by the Competent Authority in the facts nd circumstances of each case, in accordance with law. Petitioner says that the Director General, BSF had duly approved the proceedings of the Board and will be deemed to have granted the requisite condonations, including cononation in age. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent that the record does not show that in the case of the petitioner condonation in age, which was in excess by 1 year and 3 months was sought earlier, when condonation in education and chest measurement was sought. It is respondents' case that when discrepancy came to light, case was again submitted to the Competent Authority who rejected it on the basis of the norms set up for granting such condonations. It is stated that all cases for grant of condonation are generally considered by the Competent Authority, in respect of those candidates who are good in sports or have technical qualification. Petitioner was only 9th pass. He was overage and did not fulfil the physical standards. He was also not a good sportsman. Accordingly the Competent Authority declined to grant condonation in overage and also rightly withdrew the condonations granted.