R.K.MOHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a Colonel in the Indian Army. He is presently posted at Headquarters Army Training Command, Shimla. In pursuance to the letter dated 20.2.1998 (Annexure P-1), the Petitioner gave his undertaking on 16.3.1998 (Annexure P-2) which was counter-signed by his Controlling Officer on 20.3.1998. The undertaking was that on being selected to undergo any of the courses, namely, HC-27/LDMC-29/HACC-22/NHCC=11, he would continue to serve the Indian Army, if required to do so for a minimum period of five years, and, in the event of his obtaining release/premature retirement at his request, he would be liable to pay to the Government the proportionate cost of training in respect of the period for which he would fail to fulfil the undertaking. But on 21.5.1998, the Petitioner gave his unwillingness (Annexure R-2) which was forwarded by his Controlling Officer on the same day by his letter (Annexure P-3) stating that the earlier willingness of the Petitioner be treated as superseded.

(2.) Thereafter, Army signal dated 25.5.1998 (Annexure P-4) was received by the Army Training Command, Shimla, on 26.5.1998 which, in turn, informed the Petitioner on 28.5.1998 that he stood selected and detailed for LDMC-29 course at Secundrabad. On receipt of this information, the Petitioner gave fresh undertaking (Annexure P-5) which was counter-signed by his Controlling Officer and forwarded by the Deputy Military Secretary to Respondent No. 3 on the same day, i.e., 28.5.1998. Further, besides intimating Respondent No. 3 on telephone on 28.5.1998 that unwillingness of the Petitioner stood superseded by his willingness given on 28.5.1998, the Deputy Military Secretary also wrote letter (Annexure P-6) and sent military signal (Annexure P-8), on the same day, i.e., 28.5.1998, explaining the circumstances under which the Petitioner had given his unwillingness. The Petitioner also sent military signal on 29.5.1998 (Annexure P-7) informing that fresh undertaking was sent by him on 28.5.1998 in response to letter dated 25.5.1998.

(3.) Despite this, Respondent No. 3 sent signal on 29.5.1998 (Annexure P-9) informing that the Petitioner has been taken off from the LDMC-29 course being unwilling which was conveyed to the Petitioner on 30.5.1998. On receipt of this information, the Deputy Military Secretary sent his letter dated 30.5.1998 (Annexure P-10) contesting that it was not correct that the Petitioner being unwilling, was liable to be taken off the course. He also sent Military signal (Annexure P-11) on 6th June, 98 requesting Respondent No. 3 to give interview to the Petitioner. However, Respondent No. 3 instead of giving interview to the Petitioner himself delegated his powers to another officer who, according to the Petitioner, had earlier taken the impugned decision (Annexure P-9). When no positive result came out, the Petitioner made one representation dated 6.61998 (Annexure P-12) to Respondent No. 3 and another dated 9.6.1998 (Annexure P-13) to the Chief of Army Staff but of no avail. In this background, the Petitioner has approached this Court as a last resort with the prayer that the order dated 29.5.1998 (Annexure P-9) whereby the name of the Petitioner has been taken off from LDMC-29 course, being unwilling, may be set aside and directions may be issued to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to undergo the said course being eligible and duly selected by the authorities on merit.