AJAY SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs through the medium of the present writ petition:

(2.) The petitioner after completing his B.Sc. Part-II examination, got employment in the Merchant Navy and remained in the employment till 2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner completed his B.Sc. (Electronics) from University of Jammu. After acquiring qualification of graduation, while the petitioner was working in Merchant Navy, he in response to Advertisement Notice issued by the Territorial Army in the year 2009-10, applied for grant of commission in the rank of Lieutenant in Territorial Army. As per the notice, only such male citizens of India and Ex-Service Officers of the three services, who were medically fit, aged between 18 to 42 years as on 15/3/2010 with the qualification of graduation from the recognized University and those gainfully employed in the Central Government, Semi-Government/private firm/own business could apply. It was nowhere provided in the said notice that the applicant should not have been gainfully employed while working in the State Police. During the period of ongoing selection process for grant of commission in the Territorial Army, the petitioner was selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police and appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner vide Government Order dtd. 8/4/2011. The petitioner joined Jammu and Kashmir Police, as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 13/4/2011. The petitioner was also selected for grant of commission in the Territorial Army with effect from the date, the petitioner reported for training and petitioner was intimated vide communication bearing No. 84881/273/TA-4 dtd. 19/10/2011 from the office of respondent No. 4. The petitioner was also informed that he was posted to 106-Inf. Bn(TA) PARA and was directed to report to the said unit by 17/12/2011. After the receipt of the said communication, the petitioner represented before respondent No. 5, vide letter dtd. 25/11/2011 that the petitioner was undergoing Police Officers training at Udhampur and that the petitioner has been approved to undergo military training in 16-Corps Battle School Sarole, Rajouri, which was scheduled to commence from 24/12/2011 and that the military training in Battle School Rajouri be considered as military training under Territorial Army Rules and in terms of 19 (e) of the Territorial Army Rules, 1948, the petitioner be exempted from recruit training. The further request was made that the joining of the petitioner in the Territorial Army be considered with effect from 24/12/2011, when the petitioner had to join the military training in Battle School Rajouri. While the petitioner was awaiting completion of his Police training, he received impugned communication dtd. 13/12/2011 where by then Commanding Officer 106-Inf.Bn (TA) PARA who, by misreading and misinterpreting Regulation 126 (C) of the Territorial Army Regulations, informed the petitioner that in accordance with the Regulation (supra), members of the police are not permitted to join the Territorial Army and he further informed the petitioner that since the petitioner was serving in J&K Police, so he became ineligible for grant of commission in Territorial Army. The petitioner was further advised that in case, the petitioner wanted to join Territorial Army, then the petitioner should resign from Jammu and Kashmir Police and join Territorial Army. The petitioner being in disciplined force trusted that good sense would prevail and the request of the petitioner for allowing him to join Territorial Army after the completion of the military training will be acceded to, but when it was not done, Commander 6 Sector Rashtriya Rifles in his letter dtd. 23/12/2015 addressed to Commander TA Group HQ Northern command strongly recommended the case of the petitioner with a request to waive off the Regulation 126 (c) in case of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have worked very efficiently and has relied upon the various appreciation letters issued by the Army, Police and various other authorities. The petitioner also claims to have made various representations with the respondents and even the Hon'ble Defence Minister, but without any positive outcome.

(3.) The petitioner has impugned communication No. 00226/2/A1 dtd. 13/12/2011 primarily on the following grounds: