CWP No.6817 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6817 of 2007 Date of Decision: 28.4.2008 Vineet Rajan Saxena .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri APS Sarwaan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner claims a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the order Annexure P.3 dated 1.5.2007, whereby the request of the petitioner for discharge on the ground of his failure to qualify the promotional examination was declined. The petitioner joined as Air Craftsman on 9.11.1998. On passing out from Communication Training Institute, the petitioner worked as leading Air Craftsman. The petitioner appeared in the Departmental Examination (Corporal Promotion Examination) to get further promotion. He availed three chances i.e. in February, 2002, August, 2004 and August, 2006, but having failed on all the three occasions, he requested to appear in a subsequent examination. Since the said request was declined, the CWP No.6817 of 2007 (2) petitioner sought discharge from service, which was declined on 1.5.2007 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the said order. In reply, it has been pointed out that there is no provision for grant of additional chance to clear the examination for promotion and that the petitioner is not eligible for change of trade on exhaustion of the chances. It was further stated that the petitioner would be discharged after completion of 15 years of service as per the Air Force Instructions. It was further stated that the request of the petitioner for discharge was considered in view of the Army Instructions dated 22.2.2007. It was pointed out that in many cases air men have intentionally absented themselves from the promotion examination, which has been counted as having availed a chance and that thereafter taking a plea of having exhausted permissible chances, the air men seek discharge from service on the ground of limited career progression. It was clarified that the airmen not attaining the rank of Corporal would be discharged only after 15 years of service. In view of the said circular, the request of the petitioner for discharge was declined. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order declining discharge on 1.5.2002. Vide the circular dated 22.2.2007, it has been circulated that air men not attaining the rank of Corporal would be discharged after completion of 15 years of service. It was also provided that Corporals and Sergeants, who do not pass the promotion examination for higher rank, would be retained till their regular tenure i.e. 20 years. The petitioner has failed to qualify the test within the permissible chances. The discharge of the petitioner for having failed to qualify the examination, is in the discretion of the respondents. The CWP No.6817 of 2007 (3) petitioner who has failed in the test cannot seek discharge as it will amount to a premium on the negligence or the failure of the petitioner to have qualified the examination. The claim of the petitioner for discharge has been considered in terms of the Instructions applicable and has been rightly declined. Consequently, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 28.4.2008 ds