IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.305 of 2010 ARUN KUMAR, son of Sri Chalitra Prasad, resident of Village Rampur (South of Railway Station) PS Pariya, District Gaya .....Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 2. The Commandant, RR & D Bty/Army, AD Centre, Gopalpur Behrampur, Orissa .....Respondents/ Respondents ----------- 02- 11/2/2011 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha for the appellant, and Mr. Sunil Kumar for the respondents. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred against the order dated 16.11.2009, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 15434 of 2009, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the impugned order dated 14.8.2009, recalling the enrolment of the petitioner as a Soldier in the defence service of the Government of India, was upheld. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit in this appeal. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The respondent authorities had issued advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment as Soldier in the Indian Defence Service. The petitioner was one such applicant. After undergoing the detailed selection process, he was provisionally selected. The screening of certificates was done on 11.4.2009. On the basis of his being a sports person, having represented Gaya District Football Association, the petitioner had claimed the benefit of the Sports Quota. The petitioner was so 2 selected, and he was allowed to undergo training as a Soldier. By the time he had undergone training for nearly one month he was visited with the impugned order dated 14.8.2009, whereby his recruitment was terminated on the twin grounds that his sports certificate was of a period prior to two years of the date of screening, and that he had not represented the University or his State in sporting activity. It was further stated in the impugned order that sports persons are entitled to condonation of deficiency in height up to a certain extent. In view of the position that he lost claim as a sports person, the question of condonation of deficiency in his height did not arise, and he consequently fell short of the requirement of height. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the departmental communication dated 24.8.2007 (Annexure 4), that the question of validity period of a sports certificate at University/State level was considered and requisite instructions were issued by this departmental communication, paragraphs 2 and 3 of which are reproduced hereinbelow:- “2. In respect of Sportsmen enrolled, a query has been raised regarding the validity period of the Sports Certificate being produced by the candidate indicating their participation in the Sports at University/State level. “3. It has been decided that the validity period of Sports Certificate produced by the individual should have taken of the date of screening for both individual/Team sports is the individual should have taken part in these sports events within two years prior to the illegible on the screening.” (Emphasis added) It further appears from the communication dated 31st May 2009 (Annexure 5), that the appellant was called upon to submit certificate 3 of NCC/Sports and Games Certificate and other Merit Certificate, if any. In other words, it appears to us that, in order to gain the benefit of condonation of deficiency in height, the candidate must satisfy the authorities about his sporting activity at the University or State level, and the sporting authority should be within a period of two years prior to the date of screening. We must make it perfectly plain that we are normally very reluctant to interfere with the functioning of the defence service because it is a sensitive area of defence administration where discipline is of the paramount importance. That much has to be granted in the interest of the safety, security and defence of the nation. In this background, we examined the requirement mentioned in paragraph -2 of the aforesaid communication dated 4.8.2007, and reproduced hereinabove. It appears to be quite illogical that a sports person at the University level would be recognized, and not of the District level, for the purpose of selection. It is evident that a district comprises of far more number of residents than the number of students pursuing their courses in a University. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner cannot be non-suited on the ground that he had represented his district and not university. We are further of the view that the respondent authorities should reconsider the petitioner’s case from this angle treating him to have represented his district, which is by no means inferior to a sports person of a university level. 4. We are not interfering with the validity of the certificate for two years going backwards on the date of screening. This automatically takes us on to the question of relaxation in the alleged deficiency in height. 4 5. In the result, we disagree with the order of the learned single Judge. The impugned order dated 14.8.2009 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the authorities for a fresh consideration of the petitioner’s case in accordance with the observations made hereinabove, taking 11.4.2009 to be the date of screening. This Court will be pleased if a final decision is taken within a period of three months from today. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S K Katriar ) ( S P Singh ) mrl