Case: Ved Prakash Vs. U.O.I.

during his entire service as reflected by the factors mentioned therein. The Commodore, Bureau of Sailors is the authority to grant re-engagement. According to para 9 (a) and (b), the re-engagement shall not be less than 2 years and not exceed 5 years. Para 9 (c) of the Navy Order is as under:"Not-withstanding the above the sailors of Artificer Cadre and Submarine Branch will be governed by separate re-engagement norms in force from time to time. Sailors of Submarine Branch, on expiry of initial engagement, will be further re-engagement in the Submarine Cadre subject to availability of vacancies in the cadre. Otherwise, if re-engaged, they will be revered to general service. Therefore, at the time of requesting for re-engagement, they are to give an undertaking as per Appendix `B to this order that in case of Submarine Cadre becoming overborne they are liable to be reverted to general service."The procedure to be followed for re-engagement under Low Medical Category is dealt with in para 11 which provides that Sailors in permanent Low Medical Category below S2 A2 will not normally be given re-engagement. 11. It is clear from para 9 (c) of the Navy Order 02/07 that the Sailors of Artificer Cadre, to which the Appellant belongs, will be governed by separate re-engagement norms in force from time to time. On being asked to show the norms applicable to Sailors of Artificer Cadre, counsel appearing for both sides submitted that there are no such norms. The non obstante clause in para 9 (c) suggests that the conditions prescribed for re-engagement will not be applicable to Sailors of Artificer Cadre. As no norms as contemplated in para 9 (c) have been framed, the re-engagement of Sailors of Artificer Cadre will have to be necessarily governed by the Policy dated 21.11.2006. The Appellant would be entitled to be considered for re-engagement for 5 years till he completes 15 years of service as per the Policy. The decision of the fourth respondent dated 29.11.2010 re-engaging the Appellant for 2 years is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 12. The learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned ASG have made their submissions on the basis that Navy Order 02/07 is applicable to the re-engagement of the Appellant. We proceed further to examine whether the decision of the fourth respondent is justifiable applying the norms as per the Navy Order 02/07. The conditions mentioned in para 4 of Navy Order 02/07 are that 2 out of 3 annual assessments should not be below very good, that the Commanding Officer should have recommended the Sailor as suitable in all respects, the Sailor must have been declared medically fit and that the manpower requirements of this service should warrant his re-engagement. The annual assessments of the Appellant show the grade of `Very Good character from 2002-2009 and `Superior Efficiency from 2004-2009. The Commanding Officer made a strong recommendation for re-engagement of the Appellant for a period of 5 years. The Appellant was also found medically fit by being upgraded to S2 A2 (PMT) Category in December, 2009. His overall performance was found to be very good as per the recommendation of the Commanding Officer dated 06.10.2010. 13. One of the reasons given by the fourth respondent in the decision dated 29.11.2010 is that the Appellant was in medical category S3 A2 from 2006-2009 and was upgraded to S2 A2 (PMT) only in December, 2009. As per para 11 of Navy Order 02/07, re-engagement of Sailors in permanent low category below S2 A2 will not be made normally. The Appellant is in medical category S2 A2 (PMT) and as such does not suffer any disqualification. The fourth respondent also held that the Appellant served in Afloat Billets for a very limited period and that he has been positioned onboard only in August, 2010. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that due to his being in low medical category he was not sent for duty at sea for a long period. He also stated that the Appellant served for three and half years out of 10 years at sea which cannot be said to be a short period. The learned ASG submitted that the Appellant served only for one year at sea which is a very short period for a Sailor. No norms showing the minimum period of service to be spent by a Sailor at sea were placed before us. The Navy Order 02/07 also does not provide for any such prescription. It is relevant to refer to the recommendation dated 06.10.2010 of the Commanding Officer who stated that the Appellant proved to be instrumental in executing critical defect rectifications onboard though he joined the ship recently. The Appellant appears to be an efficient hand and he ought to have been given re-engagement for 5 years. The Commanding Officer further stated that the Appellant possesses excellent professional knowledge and he has gained the confidence of his superiors for single handedly resolving technical defects. The Appellants professional competence was found to be outstanding apart from the fact that he topped the EAR 4 `Q Board by scoring 90 % marks. 14. Another reason given by the Fourth Respondent is that the Appellant did not complete the CHEAR `Q Course due to low medical category/ domestic requirements. We perused the record to verify the reasons for the Appellant not taking CHEAR `Q Course. On one occasion he did not opt to take the course due to the serious illness of his wife. He was not sent for the course on four occasions due to his placement in the low medical category. The Appellant cannot be accused of intentionally avoiding the course. In view of the above, the Appellant satisfies the conditions for re-engagement in para 4 of Navy Order 02/07. The fourth respondent ought to have re-engaged the Appellant for 5 years by giving importance to the recommendations of the fifth and third respondents. As mentioned above, the Appellants performance was found to be outstanding.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. It is clear from para 9 (c) of the Navy Order 02/07 that the Sailors of Artificer Cadre, to which the Appellant belongs, will be governed by separatenorms in force from time to time. On being asked to show the norms applicable to Sailors of Artificer Cadre, counsel appearing for both sides submitted that there are no such norms. The non obstante clause in para 9 (c) suggests that the conditions prescribed forwill not be applicable to Sailors of Artificer Cadre. As no norms as contemplated in para 9 (c) have been framed, theof Sailors of Artificer Cadre will have to be necessarily governed by the Policy dated 21.11.2006. The Appellant would be entitled to be considered forfor 5 years till he completes 15 years of service as per the Policy. The decision of the fourth respondent dated 29.11.2010the Appellant for 2 years is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.The learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned ASG have made their submissions on the basis that Navy Order 02/07 is applicable to theof the Appellant.We proceed further to examine whether the decision of the fourth respondent is justifiable applying the norms as per the Navy Order 02/07.The conditions mentioned in para 4 of Navy Order 02/07 are that 2 out of 3 annual assessments should not be below very good, that the Commanding Officer should have recommended the Sailor as suitable in all respects, the Sailor must have been declared medically fit and that the manpower requirements of this service should warrant hisThe annual assessments of the Appellant show the grade of `Very Good character fromand `Superior Efficiency fromThe Commanding Officer made a strong recommendation forof the Appellant for a period of 5 years. The Appellant was also found medically fit by being upgraded to S2 A2 (PMT) Category in December, 2009. His overall performance was found to be very good as per the recommendation of the Commanding Officer dated 06.10.2010.One of the reasons given by the fourth respondent in the decision dated 29.11.2010 is that the Appellant was in medical category S3 A2 fromand was upgraded to S2 A2 (PMT) only in December, 2009. As per para 11 of Navy Order 02/07,of Sailors in permanent low category below S2 A2 will not be made normally. The Appellant is in medical category S2 A2 (PMT) and as such does not suffer any disqualification. The fourth respondent also held that the Appellant served in Afloat Billets for a very limited period and that he has been positioned onboard only in August, 2010. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that due to his being in low medical category he was not sent for duty at sea for a long period. He also stated that the Appellant served for three and half years out of 10 years at sea which cannot be said to be a short period. The learned ASG submitted that the Appellant served only for one year at sea which is a very short period for a Sailor. No norms showing the minimum period of service to be spent by a Sailor at sea were placed before us. The Navy Order 02/07 also does not provide for any such prescription. It is relevant to refer to the recommendation dated 06.10.2010 of the Commanding Officer who stated that the Appellant proved to be instrumental in executing critical defect rectifications onboard though he joined the ship recently. The Appellant appears to be an efficient hand and he ought to have been givenfor 5 years. The Commanding Officer further stated that the Appellant possesses excellent professional knowledge and he has gained the confidence of his superiors for single handedly resolving technical defects. The Appellants professional competence was found to be outstanding apart from the fact that he topped the EAR 4 `Q Board by scoring 90 % marks.Another reason given by the Fourth Respondent is that the Appellant did not complete the CHEAR `Q Course due to low medical category/ domestic requirements. We perused the record to verify the reasons for the Appellant not taking CHEAR `Q Course. On one occasion he did not opt to take the course due to the serious illness of his wife. He was not sent for the course on four occasions due to his placement in the low medical category. The Appellant cannot be accused of intentionally avoiding the course. In view of the above, the Appellant satisfies the conditions forin para 4 of Navy Order 02/07. The fourth respondent ought to havethe Appellant for 5 years by giving importance to the recommendations of the fifth and third respondents. As mentioned above, the Appellants performance was found to be outstanding.