IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7678 of 2002 Satrugh Kumar, s/o Sri Suraj Mal Singh, Resident of Village – Jakhaura, P S – Haspura, District – Aurangabad - Petitioner Versus 1) The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi 2) Commanding Officer 5131 Army Supply Core Battalion C/o 56 APO 3) Commanding Officer 2 Trg Battalion Army Supply Core Centre (North) Paharpur Gaya -5 - Respondents W I T H CWJC No 7564 of 2002 Pravin Kumar, Son of Sri Ramanak Thakur, Resident of Village – Bedaul Asli P S - Aurai, District – Muzaffarpur - Petitioner Versus 1) The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi 2) Commanding Officer 5004 Army Supply Core Battalion C/o 56 APO 3) Commanding Officer 2 Trg Battalion Army Supply Core Centre (North) Paharpur Gaya -5 - Respondents W I T H CWJC No 3147 of 2002 Ashok Kumar, son of late Sukh Nandan Prasad, resident of Nannigyan Bigha, P S – Kako, District - Jehanabad - Petitioner Versus 1) The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi 2) Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi 3) Commanding Officer 603 Army Supply Core Battalion (AM) A C/O 56 APO 4) Commanding Officer HQ Wing Army Supply Core Centre (North) Paharpur Gaya -5 - Respondents W I T H CWJC No 3137 of 2002 Jagat Nath Verma, son of Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of Village – Gopalpur, P S – Magadh Medical College, Dist – Gaya - Petitioner Versus 1) The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi 2) Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi 3) Commanding Officer 5131 Army Supply Core Battalion (AM) A C/O 56 APO 4) Commanding Officer 2 T V Army Supply Core Centre (North) Paharpur Gaya -5 - Respondents ----------- 9 30.06.2009 The four writ petitions have been filed by four persons 2 who were in the Army and have since been discharged from service. Petitioners state that they were all employed in Army in March, 1995. They performed satisfactorily. They were medically examined every year and found fit till suddenly on various dates in 2001/2002, they were medically found unfit and discharged. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Army. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners were amongst the 401 persons who were recruited in one transaction. On scrutiny, it was found that the enrolling officer had not signed the enrolment documents of these 401 recruits. Enquiries were made but then on 17th January 2001, the Government of India, in the Ministry of Defence, accorded approval for regularisation of such irregular enrolment including that of the petitioners subject to medical examination. Accordingly, a Special Board of Officers from the Headquarters of the Central Commission was set up and this Board found the four petitioners unfit for employment in Army. Some of them were sent up for further check ups and ultimately Invalidating Medical Board granted approval for invalidating the appointment of petitioners. Accordingly, petitioners have been discharged having not been regularised at all. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the persons who had wrongly recruited the petitioners have also been punished. In sum and substance, the stand in the counter affidavit is that the petitioners’ appointments were illegal and even though decision was taken to regularise them, they having been found medically unfit to be taken into Army employment, they were discharged. It was not a case of acquiring disability in course of 3 regular service. Their very appointment stood vitiated. I must note that there is no rejoinder to the said counter affidavit. These basic facts have not been challenged. However, Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners rely on two unreported judgments of Delhi High Court and the Apex Court being the case of Subedar (SKT) Puttan Lal and others –Versus- Union of India & Others and Union of India & Others –Versus- Rajpal Singh respectively. Having gone through the said decisions, in my view, they are clearly distinguishable. In all those cases before the Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, the cases related to regularly employed serving Army personnel who in course of their employment had medically become unfit. This is not the case in the present. Further, in those cases, it was found that as per the Rules, their cases ought to have been dealt with by Invalidating Medical Board (IMB) which was not done. It is, therefore, that the Delhi High Court and the Apex Court set aside those terminations. Here, petitioners’ appointments were found to be irregular. While considering regularisation, they were found medically unfit for appointment in defence service. Thus, they were ineligible for appointment and, as such, could not be regularised. They were discharged accordingly. Their cases are totally different from that of other Courts, as cited above. In view of the facts aforesaid, there being no challenge to the physical disability as noticed in each individual case of the four 4 petitioners nor there being a challenge that they cannot be the grounds for not continuing with petitioners’ employment, I am not inclined to interfere in the discharge orders. The writ petitions merit no consideration and are dismissed accordingly. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)