VISHAL AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the orders dated 31.01.2019 and 18.4.2019 issued by the respondents. He also seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case, like others, who had been cleared despite having failed in one paper in the examination conducted by the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed to the post of ASI/technical in the CRPF on 22.3.2017. After the petitioner cleared the initial written examination and training, he was sent for further training at Ranchi on 24.5.2017 where he underwent a rigorous training course for a period of 33 weeks BRT Course Sl. No. 41 w.e.f 1.1.2018 to 18.8.2018 at CTC(T & IT), CRPF, Ranchi (Jharkhand). In the examination held at the end of the course, he was declared "fail" in Radio Theory Part-I and II. As per instructions, he was permitted to be retained at CTC (T & IT), CRPF, Ranchi for further three months training and for providing extra Special Classes/Coaching to re-appear in the final test in the failed subjects. Accordingly, he re-appeared in the final re-test of failed subjects held at CTC (T & IT) CRPF, Ranchi w.e.f 31.12.2018 to 1.1.2019 after completing three months coaching classes. Unfortunately for the petitioner, he again failed in Radio Theory Part II examination. Accordingly, his services were terminated in accordance with para 2.15 (A), (vi) of Chapter-II of Training Manual. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his termination which too was rejected by the second impugned order dated 18.4.2019.

(3.) The submission of Mr. Chhibber, counsel for the petitioner is that in the initial examination, as many as 68 persons had failed in one paper and, despite their failing in one paper, they were cleared. However, 14 candidates, including the petitioner, who had failed in two papers, were given further coaching and were required to re-appear in the re-examination. As aforesaid, the petitioner cleared one of the papers in the re-examination. Ld. counsel submits that the petitioner was, therefore, at par with the 68 persons who had failed in one paper and were still cleared.