Ex Spr Mahesh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 10 July 2026

**ORDER**

**10.07.2026**

**MA No 850/2018**

1. 1. The Applicant has filed this MA praying for hearing the matter at Regional Bench, Jaipur, which is allowed taking into consideration the reasons advanced therein.

**MA No 849/2018**

1. 2. The applicant has also filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of 96 days involved in filing the OA. Delay is condoned and MA is disposed off accordingly.


**OA 746/2018**

3. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents as follows :- (a) Quash and set aside the BEG Centre Discharge Certificate date 14/7/2017, Annexure A/1, being legally unsustainable as also in violation of 'Promissory Estoppel' which has been elaborated in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Judgment in Re Lt Col Mukul Dev Vs UOI & Ors, in CWP No 17025/2007 dated 16/8/2007, Annexure A/11, to meet the ends of equity, justice and fairplay; (b) Reinstate the Applicant in military service on account of having fulfilled all the training aspects of a Recruit culminated by an Attestation Parade on 06/1/2016 by the Applicant and he could be designated in any Trade as may be deemed fit by the Army authorities to meet the ends of justice and fairplay;

(c) Grant backwages of service, seniority and pay and allowances for the interregnum period from the date of discharge on 14/7/2017 till the date of reinstatement to meet the ends of equity, justice and fair play; (d) Pass any such other further orders/directions by way of adequate exemplary compensation in the attendant genuine circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of equity, justice and fairplay;

4. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant having been found physically fit was enrolled in the Army (Bengal Engineer Group) on 03/11/2014 and he qualified in all the Basic and Advance Training Tests after which he was duly attested as a Sapper equivalent to a Sepoy on 06/1/2016. Thereafter on the grounds of having failed in Class III Test as a SKT – (Store Keeper Technical), he was physically discharged from service on 15/7/2017. Importantly, prior to his discharge, a Statement of Case was put across duly recommended by the 

Commandant for change of trade from SKT to Soldier GD\or even Soldier Tradesman but the Engineer-in-Chief, Army HQ, rejected the same due to a change in subsequent policy letter dated 12/1/2017. Law is very clear that any rule which has to be put in effect will have a prospective effect only and the Policy letter dated 12/1/2017 cannot be applied against the applicant retrospectively thereby causing prejudice who was enrolled way back on 03/11/2014. On this short point itself, the Hon'ble AFT could show its kind and gracious indulgence and quash and set aside the Impugned Order and reinstate the Applicant back in service in any Trade as deemed fit. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant submitted an application to the Commandant BEG Centre, that he should not be discharged from service as he had completed three years of military training successfully, Annexure A/7. Thereafter, a Legal Notice was sent to the Respondents through the counsel of the applicant praying that the applicant could be transferred to the tradesman category in the larger interest of justice, Annexure A/8, but to no avail. The applicant further submitted that the applicant had earlier filed an OA before the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal on 20/4/2018, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order on the short point that the statement of case for remustering from Store Keeper Technical to Tradesman Category could not be accomplished only because of the subsequent change in policy letter dated 29/12/2016 which in any case cannot be made applicable to the applicant retrospectively who got enrolled in the Army way back on 16/12/2014. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order dated 04/5/2018, Annexure A/10, directed that the matter be withdrawn and filed in the correct Regional Bench as per territorial jurisdiction. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed the OA praying for relief.

5. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and have stated that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 03/11/2014 through ARO, Jodhpur. The applicant reported to No 1 Training Battalion, BEG & Centre for his training and after completion of BMT phase, he had undergone trade training Class IV and successfully passed Class IV on 06/1/2016. During the trade test Class III, the applicant failed on three consecutive chances. Subsequently, a Board of Officers was held to ascertain feasibility of changing his trade from SKT to Soldier Tradesman and it was found that the applicant did not meet the QR of that as per Director General of Recruiting, IHQ

of MoD (Army) letter No 62512/Rtg B(A) dated 19/6/2015 and it was recommended that the dispensation of height be obtained from Competent Authority, ie, AG's Branch. A statement of case for dispensation of height criteria for change of trade Soldier (Tdn) category was forwarded to AG's Branch, through the Engineer-in-Chief (E-in-C) Branch by HQ BEG and Centre vide their letter No 1833/Vol X/04/Rtg dated 30/12/2016. The statement of case was returned by the E-in-C Branch due to change in policy on the subject matter vide IHQ of MoD (Army) Director General Recruiting B (A) letter No 62512/Rtg (B) (A) dated 14/12/2016, received from IHQ of MoD (Army), E-in-C Branch letter No 79083/Rect/Gen/Gp-5/111/E1A dated 01/2/2017. Later, a noting sheet bearing the No 40161-39G(CT) dated 18/3/2017 with regard to the case of the applicant was put up to the Commandant BEG & Centre, Roorkee, for approval. On approval from the Commandant, the Applicant was discharged from service on 14/7/2017.

6. We have heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. It is evident from the material on record that the applicant was enrolled in the Bengal Engineer Group on 03/11/2014 as an SKT trade. He had completed his BMT as also Trade Training Class IV on 06/1/2016. However, during the Trade Test Class III, which, like the Basic Military Training, is an essential training component to assess the suitability of a soldier for his ability to perform his duties for the Trade for which he was enrolled, the applicant failed on three consecutive occasions. As he could not clear the Trade Test Class III, in spite of having been given three chances, as a welfare measure, the authorities constituted a Board of Officers to ascertain the feasibility of changing his trade from SKT to Soldier Tradesman. However, it was found that applicant did not meet the Qualitative Requirement of height as per the policy formulated by the IHQ of MoD (Army). Since he could not pass the requisite Trade Test and was not meeting the physical criteria for conversion of his trade from SKT to Soldier Trade, with the approval of the Competent Authority, he was validly discharged from Army. As has been observed by this Tribunal in numerous similar cases in the past that the Regimental Training Centre of the Indian Army is the cradle to train a civilian recruited into the Army to become a well trained soldier – both 

mentally and physically robust - to be able to defend the Nation at all times irrespective of terrain and geography as also able to carry out his trade work efficiently and to the satisfaction of his superior officers, we are of the opinion that we find no illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the Respondents in discharging the applicant from army service wef 14/7/2017 owing to his inability to clear the mandatory trade test during his formative years at the Training Centre nor was he able to meet the criteria for conversion of his trade. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant to reinstate in service alongwith other benefits as prayed for in the OA have no merit and is rejected.


8. The OA is dismissed accordingly. No order on costs.

9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

SD/XXX

SD/XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)

cda/-