HARI SHANKAR CHOUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a candidate for the post of Religious Teacher in the Indian Army interalia prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to depute him to undergo training as a junior Commissioned Officer in the Course which commenced on November 28, 1994. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On April 15, 1994, applications were invited for recruitment of Religious teachers in the Army as Junior Commissioner Officer for RRI-13 and RRI-14 Courses". The minimum educational qualification was Graduation in any discipline from a recognised University". In addition Qualifications relating different posts like pandits and Granthis were separately prescribed.

(3.) The petitioner having been awarded the Degree of Ph.D. in Sanskrit in the year 1992 fulfilled the prescribed qualifications. He consequently submitted his application. Vide Letter dated June 2, 1994, the petitioner was asked to report on June 25,1994, to the Branch Recruiting Office, Ambala cantt. He appeared. He was medically examined by Maj. Ambesh Kumar on June 25, 1994. He was declared temporarily unfit as there was" Central performation (L) tympanic membrane". On June 26, 1994, he appears in the written test. The petitioner was entitled to appear before an expert for re-examination. Soon thereafter, the petitioner got himself examined at a private nursing home. Dr. P.S. Handa examined him on June 28,1994. He found on microscopic examination, that the left tympanic membrane was intact. There petitioner obtained a second opinion. He appeared before Dr. Chandesh Mohindroo. He found that there was "healed perforation". Clinically, hearing was within normal limits and that there was no active session. On July 13, 1994, the petitioner was examined by Col. G.S. Ahluwalia at the Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt. The petitioner avers that he was orally informed that he was fit. However, according to the report forwarded by Col. Ahluwalia the petitioner was again found to be temporarily unfit. On July 27, 1994, the petitioner received a letter calling upon him to appear for interview at the Army Ordance Centre, Secunderabad. The petitioner appeared for the interview. He was informed that the medical fitness certificate had not been received. On August 20, 1994, a signal was sent from the Centre for the issue of the medical fitness certificate. The petitioner on his own came to Ambala on August 30, 1994, to get the certificate. He was informed that Col. Ahluwalia had found him to be unfit. H e then proceeded to Chandigarh. On August 31, 1994, he got himself examined at the P.G.I. The doctor in the Department ENT who examined him found that "both tympanic membranes are intact. There is no perfoation in the (L) ear as has been diagnosed in CH (MH) Ambala." The doctor at the P.G.I, appears to have referred the petitioner's case to Maj. Gen. R.C. Kocher at the Command Hospital. On the same day, the petitioner appeared before the Senior Advisor in the department of ENT at the Command Hospital (Western Command) Chandimandir. He was referred to Maj. K.B. Singh. He was examined on September 1,1994. A copy of the report has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. Both the tympanic membranes were found to be intact. On the next day, the petitioner again appeared before Col. Ahluwalia at the Military Hospital, Ambala. He was declared 'fit' in the ENT Thereafter, on September 5, 1994, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No. 3 and requested him to look into the matter and to permit him to join the Course. Respondent No. 3 in turn made a query vide letter dated September 16, 1994, from respondent No. 2. On September 19,1994, comments in response to the query were forwarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3. However, since the first training course had commenced on September 19, 1994, the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition on September 27, 1994. Later on, the petition was amended. Primarily, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in declaring him temporarily unfit and in not deputing him for the training course. He avers that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and unfair.