Agnipath Scheme: Why Did Delhi High Court Not Direct Union Govt To Complete Pending Recruitment Processes In Army, Air Force?

While upholding the union government's Agnipath scheme, the Delhi High Court on Monday also rejected the petitions seeking completion of recruitment processes initiated earlier by the Army and Air Force.Before the announcement of the Agnipath scheme, the union government had announced recruitments on various posts in the Air Force and Army. While the candidates were in the middle of recruitment process or were waiting for publication of the enrolment list, the union government announced the Agnipath scheme and cancellation of the pending recruitment processes. ArgumentsIt was argued before the court that actions of union government are hit by the principle of promissory estoppel as the candidates on selection had decided to forgo other job opportunities. The petitioners also contended that they having participated in the selection process, are entitled to a legitimate expectation that the results would be declared.However, the union government argued that no vested rights could possibly have accrued in favour of the Petitioners during the recruitment process. It was also argued by the government that the decision to change the mode and method of recruitment falls under the purview of "sovereign policy-making functions"."Agnipath Scheme was necessitated due to the peculiar border situation, the incessant threats and attempts to infiltrate the said borders by hostile neighboring countries and non-state actors," the union government argued before the court. DecisionThe division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot come to the rescue of the candidates who were in the middle of the recruitment process."It is well settled that individuals who were merely waiting to be issued Appointment Letters, cannot claim to have a vested right to gain employment. It is well settled position of law that nobody has an indefeasible right to claim employment. The issue as to whether any right inures in a candidate without an appointment order being issued in their favour has been crystallized by the Apex Court in a number of judgments," said the court.The court also said the material on record also weighs heavily against the petitioners. "The instructions for candidates published in PSL dated 31.05.2021 also stated that Candidates whose names appear in Provisional Select List are NOT (R) NOT guaranteed enrolment," said the courtIt added that advertisement dated 21.12.2019, published for the recruitment to the Air Force also stated that “the terms and conditions given in the advertisement are guidelines only and orders issued by the Government as amended from time to time will apply for the selected candidates.”"These caveats weigh heavily against the claim of the Petitioners to indicate that the Petitioners cannot claim to have an enforceable right to gain employment," said the court.Observing that there exists a distinction between selection and appointment, the court said simply because an individual was successful in the selection process, it does not mean that they have acquired a right to be appointed."There exists no indefeasible right of appointment in favour of such an individual," it added.The court also said that public interest weighs against the candidates, and reiterated that a recruitment process can be changed by the State midway, if the same is in public interest."The Agnipath Scheme seems to adequately pass this test as well. The stated objective of the scheme is to reduce the age of the Armed Forces; this will make the forces leaner, agile and will be greatly beneficial for border security. It has also been stated that the Impugned Scheme, by reducing the average age of soldiers, will bring our Armed Forces at par with other nations, as the average age of Armed Forces across the world is 26 years."The court further said that the stated objective of the impugned scheme is to have a blend of young Jawans, Sailors or Airmen between the age of 18-25 years as Agniveers, supervised by an experienced regular cadre having the age of 26 years. "To achieve this goal, the State has also been consistently decreasing the age bracket of officers as dealt with in the first part of this judgment, such stated objectives of the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary, whimsical or mala fide; they serve a definite public interest," it added.On the question of principle of promissory estoppel, the court said:"Like the doctrine of legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel too is simply a shield and not a sword. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., it was held that even if larger public interest is in favour of the changed policy, it would not be enough for the Government to state that public interest would suffer if the Government were required to honour its obligation."The bench said the court cannot bind the government to its policy decision, if the same is changed due to overarching concerns of public interest. "Furthermore,...

Agnipath Scheme: Why Did Delhi High Court Not Direct Union Govt To Complete Pending Recruitment Processes In Army, Air Force?

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags