EX RECRUIT SUNIL YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 8 connected petitions involving the same controversy and the same questions of law and facts. Ld. counsel for the petitioner Shri P.N. Chaturvedi has argued the case of Sunil Yadav as the leading case and it has been stated that the other cases be decided accordingly. Shri R.N. Singh, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents has also made a statement that all the cases be decided on the basis of the decision in Sunil Yadav's case. We are accordingly disposing of all these cases by a common order and have treated Sunil Yadav's case i.e. TA No. 204 of 2009 as the leading case and the facts which have been stated in this order are the facts of that petition.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these cases were enrolled in the Indian Army after success in the All India Test for enrollment of Clerks, the result of which was declared on 01.01.2007. The petitioner Sunil Yadav was enrolled on 18.01.2007. After enrolment the petitioners were required to do the Basic Military Training (BMT) for a period of 19 weeks and after successful completion thereof, a further training course of Clerks for a period of 32 weeks. Under the policy of the Army Headquarters, dated 23.05.1999, Annexure 9 to the petition, which, according to the petitioners, was applicable to them, the petitioners were required to appear in a proficiency and aptitude test, which was to be held on the sixth day (Saturday) from the date of commencement of the Basic Training Course. Those who were unsuccessful were entitled to appear in a special test to be held in the eleventh week of the BMT. Those who had taken the test for the first time in the eleventh week, but were unsuccessful were eligible to take the second chance in the test to be held in the sixteenth week of the BMT. The minimum passing marks in the proficiency and aptitude test under this policy were 15% and the candidates were to be examined in three subjects, namely, Mathematics, General English and General Knowledge. Those candidates, who had failed in both the tests were yet to be considered for re -musteration for other trades.

(3.) WE have heard Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for the applicants and Shri R.N. Singh, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents.