NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the case has been taken up for final decision at the motion stage on the basis of the record produced by the respondents.

(2.) Pursuant to advertisement dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure P-1) in the press for recruitment rally by respondent No. 3, Branch Recruiting Officer (Army), Charkhidadri, the petitioner participated in the recruitment rally in his capacity as a son of an Ex-serviceman by producing his Matriculation certificate (Annexure P-2), discharge book of his father, letter from Army Medical Corps Records, Lucknow intimating publication of birth of the petitioner in the service record of his father (Annexure P-2) and affidavit of his father dated 12.12.2003 (Annexure P-4). Father's name of the petitioner is mentioned as Sanwar Mal Sharma in affidavit Annexure P-4 whereas in the matriculation certificate, his father's name is mentioned as Sawar Mal Sharma. The petitioner participated in the screening test on 30.3.2005 and had also passed the medical test. On 24.5.2005 when he approached respondent No. 3 for collecting his admit card for the Common Entrance Exam, which was to be held on 29.5.2005, he was informed that the affidavit of his father earlier submitted by him had been misplaced and that there was a variation in his father's name in his Matriculation certificate (Swar Mal Sharma) and in the discharge book (Sanwar Mal Sharma), therefore, he was directed to submit an affidavit in that regard. The petitioner could not arrange the affidavit on the same day i.e. 24.5.2005 but he submitted affidavit dated 25.5.2005 (Annexure P-5) to the effect that his father's name in Matriculation certificate is Sawar Mal Sharma whereas in the Army records it is Sanwar Mal Sharma and that both the names are of one person. Necessary entries were made in the record of respondent No. 2 and he was assured to be considered as a son of an Ex-serviceman. On 29.5.2005, the petitioner appeared in the Common Entrance Exam and made a mark on merit but subsequently on enquiry it was revealed that benefit of being the son of Ex. Serviceman (SOEX benefit) had not been granted to him.

(3.) Vide impugned order dated 2.7.2005 (Annexure P-6) the petitioner was informed that he had not been granted the benefit of son of Ex-serviceman. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus :-