UNION OF INDIA Vs. LENKA SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard Deputy Solicitor General, Sri N.Harinath, and Sri A.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The Union of India is in appeal before this Court questioning the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.37924 of 2022. By the said order, the learned single Judge disposed of a number of writ petitions pertaining to recruitment in the Agnipath Scheme in the Indian Army.

(3.) Learned Deputy Solicitor General argued the matter at length. It is his contention that the learned single Judge erred in passing the impugned order. He points out that the procedure was strictly followed by the appellants and that all the candidates who had produced the relevant certificates were permitted to avail the benefits. He argues that there is no discrimination at all and two candidates who had deposited all the requisite certificates including the original NCC certificates were given the benefit, while the others who did not deposit the said certificates were asked to take the written examination. He also points out that provisional Admit Cards were given to the candidates who did not submit the NCC certificates. It is argued on the basis of a tabular statement annexed to the grounds of appeal that provisional certificates were given. It is also argued that the submission of the original certificate is necessary for claiming the bonus marks and for appearing for the Common Entrance Examination (CEE). Lastly, in the alternate, it is also pointed out that recruitment had already commenced for this batch of Agniveers and that in the worst case scenario if this Court comes to the conclusion that the respondents are eligible, they can be accommodated in the next batch. This submission is after obtaining instructions and the statements made without prejudice to the primary contention that the writ petitioners are not eligible for any benefit under the scheme until and unless they produce the original NCC certificates within the time stipulated. Hence, the contention of the learned Deputy Solicitor General that the learned single Judge committed an error in passing the order.