Full Text
$-^24'/' : :
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
WRIT PETITIONrCIVIL) No. 10547/2015 : Date of decision: August, 2017.
CADETABBHISHAECK BORA .....Petitioner through Mr. S. S.Pandey, Advocate.
, . , _
UNION OF INDIA &ORS. ^^ Respondents
Through Mrl Kirtiman Singh, CGSC & Mr. ; jWaiz^ Alt^br^ Mr^ Pr^^ r^.;,^il<ramate
•• .CORAM: • ' • • •
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIY KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUStJiCE)n41iS v •, •
••"''i-rY ' - •
SANJIV KHANNA. J.
The matter was heard yesterday and \f:as adjourned to be taken up on 18th August, 2017, as the counsel for petitioner wanted to talce instructions.
JUDGMENT
3. The petitioner upon selection by the Services Selection Board in January, 2011 had joined the National, Defence Academy (NDA), Course Serial No. 126 as a Cadet on 7th July, 2011. 4., the records'show that the petitioner was not able to cope up with the studies, strenuous workouts, and physical exercises in NDA. W.P. (C) No.,10547/2015', ' ' '. / Page 1of[4] 2017:DHC:8420-DB
5. The petitioner was relegated on three occasions. In the first semester the petitioner was relegated on academic ground in December, 2011. In the fourth term in August, 2013, the petitioner was relegated on disciplinary grounds from Course Serial No 127 to
128. The petitioner was seen struggling to meet the benchmark in out door trainings (ODTs). In the sixth semester and final semester, the petitioner failed in running 5 metres shuttle and was relegated on the third occasion on ODT ground.
6. On third relegation in accordance with the policy dated 28th July, 2006, Academy Routine Order dated 20th May, 2015 for withdrawal of the petitioner from NDA was issued.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon sub-clause (h) of clause 12 ofthepolicy which reads as linder:
Counsel for the petitioner submits that on recommendation for relegation on third occasion, the cadet sHould be recommended for withdrawal, except where relegation on third occasion is for medical reasons. Counsel for petitioner submits that on earlier occasions the petitioner had cleared the ODT test, including running 5 metres shuttle. v-5 c. W.P.(C) No. 10547/2015 Page2of[4]
8. The petitioner has not placed on record any medical papers to show that he was unwell or suffering from some sickness when the physical tests or ODT tests were undertaken in the sixth semester: Thus, the contention that the failure was for medical reason/ground is incorrect. Further, the running of 5 metre shuttle training keeps on getting tougher with each semester.
9. The responderits in the counter affidavit have stated that the petitioner was found to be weak in ODT during his stay in the Academy and had passed the physical training test in compensatory attempts. The respondents have stated'as under:- "(i) The petitioner was placed in RWL for ODTs thrice in AT 12 (Autumn: Term Jun - Nov 2012), ST 13 (Spring term Dec - May 2013) and' AT 14 (Autumn Tem Jun -f:Nov 2014-fifth term). In Autumn Term ^14^ the petitioner was placed on RWL (ODJs) for:= 2:4'kilometre run and Vault and was early.;c:0 the same (01 week early report to Acadcniy; from Term Break). The petitioner findlyi/^cl^re^lhiS test in ATC (Allowed toTransit Gdi^f§el-i4^.(3<itriallowed to carry on to next term on discretion of Comdt) (2"^* Attempt) on 17.01.2015.
(ii) Relegation OPiT^ -^The petitioner has been clearing his test in compensatory attempts and continued to remain weak both in Physical Trag and Cross-Country. In the Sixth term (ST 15), the petitioner has not been able to clear his 3 Kilometre run and 5 metre Shuttle after three compensatory attempts conducted on 30.04.2015, 18.05.2015 and 19.05.2015. The petitioner was not able to meet the requisite PT standards of the Academy and therefore the Petitioner was relegated on ODT Grounds (PT test) as per ARO dated 28.05.2015. Consequently, the Petitioner W.P. (C) No. 10547/2015 Page 3of[4] was recommended for withdrawal from the Academy on being relegated three times during the stay at the Academy as per the Academy policy."
10. The respondents has submitted that the petitioner had shown signs ofwithdrawal from training activities in the first term itself. The petitioner had apparently written letters or notes for his parents asking them for withdrawal of consent. The parents, it is apparent, wantedthe petitioner to continue. Father of the petitioner is a retired Junior Commissioned Officer. The petitioner has statedthat these letters were notposted. We arenot referring to the saidletters asthese arepersonal in nature. /
11. Keeping in view the exactingphysical standardsrequired to join the Army, we would hesitate to ihtei-fere arid thereby dilute the same. We are not in a position to 'grant aiiy; relief to the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed,; without anyorder asto costs, f, •• •; SANJIVKHANNA,J. AUGUST 18, 2017 MR W.P.(C)No. 10547/2015 J NAVIN CHAWLA, J.. Page 4 of[4]