HARNEK SINGH PABBLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled as Clerk (General Duties) in the Indian Army on 13th Oct., 1952. He was promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar with effect from 1st July, 1969, with ante-dated seniority from 1st July, 1967 . According to the petitioner, as per Army instructions, a Non- Commissioned or Junior Commissioned Officer with 10 years' service and Matriculation as qualification, was eligible to be selected for permanent commission (Special List) through Services Selection Board. He was not selected for permanent commission (Special List) Quartermaster. According to him, be was not considered for permanent commission (Special List) as Record Officer, though he had applied both for Quartermaster and Record Officer. The non-selection of the petitioner for permanent commission (Special List) as Quartermaster and his non-consideration for permanent commission as Record Officer, led him to file C.W.P. No. 141 of 1974, which was dismissed on 7th Oct., 1982 (Copy Annexure R-1 with the written statement). The learned Judge had noticed the stand of the respondents to the effect that the petitioner had qualified only at the initial Selection Board, i.e. Services Selection Board against the vacancies of the year 1967 and that too for the appointment of Quartermaster only. However, he was not selected for the grant of permanent commission (Special List) as Quartermaster by the Final Selection Board at the Army Headquarters as he had neither the requisite experience for the appointment nor he had qualified in the Quartermaster's course. As far as consideration for permanent commission as Record Officer was concerned, it was noticed that the petitioner had in the personal information form only filled in his choice for Quartermaster only and not for Record Officer.

(2.) The petitioner, however, persisted with representation to the respondents that in fact the respondents' factual stand was wrong, inasmuch as he had the requisite experience and had in fact applied for both Quartermaster as well as Record Officer. The petitioner was discharged from the Military service in the year 1978. Even after discharge from the Army, he went on making representations to the respondents to reconsider the matter and redress his grievance. One such representation, dated 4th July, 1990 was addressed to the Chief of the Army Staff. Since, according to the petitioner, the representation had not beep decided, he filed another writ petition in this Court, being C.W.P. No. 14490, which came for hearing before a Division Bench on 13th Dec., 1990. After noticing the fact that the petitioner's earlier writ petition had been dismissed in the year 1982, the Division Bench disposed of the writ petition by giving the following directions:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is factually wrong to say that the petitioner did not have requisite experience for the grant of permanent commission as Quartermaster, inasmuch as it is apparent from the record of the case that the petitioner had the requisite experience, inasmuch as in the year 1967, the petitioner had about 14 years' service. She referred to Annexure P-2, which is a letter from the ASC, Centre (South) Bangalore to ASC, Records (Supply) Bangalore, in which it has been mentioned as under:-