Delhi High Court Closes Subedar's Plea After Army Admits Procedural Lapses In Service Extension Screening, Orders Fresh Firing Test
The Delhi High Court has closed a plea filed by a Junior Commissioned Officer challenging denial of service extension, after the Army acknowledged “procedural lapses” in the screening process and agreed to conduct a fresh firing test.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan was hearing a plea by Nai. Subedar Ramakant Singh, who had contested his non-recommendation for extension of service on the ground that he had not participated in the firing tests purportedly conducted in Jammu & Kashmir.
The controversy arose from the Army's claim that Singh had appeared in firing tests held on August 02 and 04 last year at Naugam, J&K, but failed to qualify.
However, Singh disputed the position claiming that he was on sanctioned leave during the relevant period and was present in his hometown in Uttar Pradesh.
On February 27, the Court had directed requisition of Call Detail Records and cell tower location data of Singh's mobile numbers for the relevant period.
The Court had also protected Singh from discharge from service pending adjudication of his plea, while clarifying that no equity would arise in his favour merely due to the interim protection.
During the hearing on April 07, the Army produced a communication stating that the competent authority had taken note of “infirmities in conduct of screening” and decided to grant a fair opportunity to Singh.
As per the communication, the earlier screening board proceedings and results would be set aside and a fresh firing test would be conducted at the Regimental Centre.
The communication also said that Singh's performance in other qualifying criteria would be considered and if found eligible, he would be granted a two-year extension at par with his batchmates.
The Army further stated that action would be initiated regarding the procedural lapses.
In view of the Army's decision, the Court held that no further orders were required and disposed of the petition as infructuous.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Ankita Gautam, Mr. Harsh Gautam, Advs
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Shiv Chopra, Mr. Sanjeet, Ms. Shweta Singh, Ms. Mehvish, Mr. Adarsh, Ms. Akanksha Suman, Mr. Achint Gupta Advs. for UOI
Title: NB SUB RAMAKANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA