Unsuccessful In All Attempts: Rajasthan HC Rejects Candidate's Challenge To Policy On Officers' Selection To Commission In Army Dental Corps

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a candidate's petition challenging a 1996 Policy on procedure for selection of officers for appointment to permanent commission in Army Dental Corps, after noting that that he had not only participated in the process but had remained unsuccessful three times. The court thus said that the candidate was thus barred by the principle of acquiescence. It said that the candidate could not prove that the alleged action of the respondent amounted to changing the rules of the game during the selection process nor could he show that any prejudice was caused to interested candidates like him. The division bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali and Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati further observed that in absence of any substantial ground for arguing that the 1996 Policy was arbitrary, discriminatory or prejudicial to the rights of any bona-fide candidate, it was settled that only the legality of the policy and not its wisdom or soundness could be subject of judicial review.He participated and but failed to qualify"In the present case, the appellant has clearly failed to establish in any manner whatsoever, that the impugned action of the respondents amounted to changing the 'Rules of Game' during continuation of the process in question, nor was he able to show that the impugned Policy or action of the respondents have caused unwarranted prejudice to the lawful rights & interests of the candidates like the present appellant, qua the grant of Permanent Commission in the AD Corps. Thus, merely on count of the fact that at the behest of the appellant, without there being any strong legal ground, it has been urged that a different Policy (i.e. Policy of 2012) would have been fair, transparent, rational & logical, this Court does not feel inclined to strike down the Policy of 1996, qua the process in question, in the given circumstances, and also looking into the fact, which is writ large on the face of the record, that it would not be appropriate for this Court, to embark upon an enquiry that a better, fairer or wiser alternative (Policy of 2012 in the present case) is available, instead of the impugned Policy of 1996," the court said. It further said that there was no substantial ground raised by the candidate to arrive at a conclusion that the 1996 Policy is arbitrary, discriminatory or prejudicial to the rights of any bona fide candidate. The court observed that the petitioner had not only participated in the process in question, but also failed to make it to the requisite merit. "thus, the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has rightly observed that the appellant is now barred by the principle of acquiescence, from laying and sustaining the present challenge,” the court added. BackgroundThe appellant was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioner Officer (SSCO) in Army Dental Corps. Desirous of being granted Permanent Commission, the appellant attempted the Departmental Examination three times, but failed in all and his opportunities to get the PermanentCommission as an SSCO, stood exhausted.For context, Union Ministry of Defence issued a communication to the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services, endorsing a copy thereof to the Director General of Medical Services (Army), Director General of Medical Services (Navy) & Director General of Medical Services (Air Force), which was a Policy on 'Procedure to be followed by the AD Corps Selection Board For Selection of Officers for Appointment to Commission in the Army Dental Corps' to be followed, in particularly, for selection of SSCO for Permanent Commission in the Army Dental Corps. Following this, appellant raised a claim with the State seeking his candidature be considered under another 2012 Policy instead of the 1996 Policy on the ground that the 1996 Policy did not take into account the performance of officer, special achievements, honours, awards etc, and rather prescribes a single clear test for granting Permanent Commission to an SSCO.This claim was rejected by the State which was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition which was also dismissed by the single judge of this Court. This decision was challenged by the appellant before the division bench. It was the case of the appellant that the 1996 Policy was discriminatory and irrational since it laid down single clear test ignoring the entire work experience and other achievements, as opposed to the 2012 Policy that provided for considering performance, achievements, awards etc. It was further submitted that the appellant was not aware until 2017, that under the 1996 Policy no weightage was given to the service records of candidates and in that light there was no cogent reason for the State to have applied the 1996 Policy instead of the 2012 Policy.On the contrary, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the appellant had exhausted all 3 opportunities under the 1996 Policy without any protest and hence, his reliance on...

Unsuccessful In All Attempts: Rajasthan HC Rejects Candidate's Challenge To Policy On Officers' Selection To Commission In Army Dental Corps

Nupur Agrawal

Tags