Ris Kheraj Ram vs UOI & Others on 8 July 2026

1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary, Department of Military Affairs, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi – 110 011

2. 2. Chief of the Army Staff, Addl Dte Gen of Personnel Services, AG's Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi – 110 011

3. 3. Dte Gen of Mech Forces, GS Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011

4. 4. Armd Corps Records, PIN 900 476, c/o 56 APO

5. 5. The Commanding Officer, 54 Armd Regt, PIN 912 654

**सत्यमेव जयते**

**.... Respondents**

**For Applicant For Respondents**

**: Mr. DR Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Pyare Lal, Senior Panel Counsel**

**CORAM:**

**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**


1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA with the following prayers- **यतो न्यायः ततो जयः**

1. (a) The action/inaction of the Respondents in not processing and/or not forwarding the Screening Board proceedings and connected papers for grant of two years extension in service to the applicant may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and bad in law;

2. (b) The Respondents be directed to forthwith process and forward the Screening Board proceedings/ all requisite papers pertaining to grant of two 

years extension of service in respect of the applicant to the competent authority, within a time bound period;

(c) Further, the competent authority may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant fairly, objectively and expeditiously in accordance with the applicable rules/policy and without allowing the claim to be defeated by administrative inaction at Unit level; (d) That pending final disposal of the OA, the Respondents may kindly be directed to stay the discharge of the applicant scheduled on 31/7/2026 in the interest of justice; (e) Any other order, direction or relief which may be deemed fit in the circumstances may also kindly be passed in favour of the applicant in the larger interest of equity, justice and law.

सत्यमेव जयते

As an interim prayer, it has also been prayed by the applicant that pending final disposal of the OA, the Respondents may kindly be directed to immediately process and forward the Screening Board proceedings/requisite papers of the applicant for grant of two years' extension of service and to ensure that the claim of the applicant is decided before the scheduled date of discharge so that the matter is not frustrated by delay and if it does not happen by due date, the discharge of the applicant scheduled to be held on 31/7/2026 (AN) may please be stayed.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army (Armoured Corps) on 08/7/1998 and has served the Organisation with sincerity, devotion and in an unblemished record throughout his tenure. He rose to the rank of Subedar in the year 2023. The applicant distinguished himself as a Sportsman, particularly in cross country running participated in the Divisional level competitions and brought laurels for himself and for the Regiment. Further, owing to his professional competence, discipline, ACR profile and service record, he was selected for posting to Sainik School, Jhansi and was posted there on 30/1/2024. Vide Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 03/9/1998, for the rank of Subedar, the tenure is 28 years of service extendable by two years through a screening, or upto 52 years of age, whichever is earlier. The applicant is due for discharge from service 

on 31/7/2026 and, therefore, the screening for grant of extension of two years service ought to have been completed in Jun/July 2024. While serving on Extra Regimental Employee (ERE) with the Sainik School, Jhansi, the parent unit of the applicant, ie, 54 Armd Regiment had issued letter dated 04/4/2024 calling for his willingness/unwillingness alongwith physical fitness certificate for grant of extension. Accordingly, the applicant forwarded his Willingness Certificate alongwith physical fitness certificate and firing test results, duly signed by the Principal, Sainik School on 04/6/2024. However, according to the applicant, the Commanding Officer of his parent unit did not act upon the same and the Screening Board proceedings were not sent to Armd Corps Records for further processing, Annexure A/2. Despite contacting the Unit concerned telephonically on many occasions and making personal visits and sending personal letters dated 19/11/2025, 26/11/2025 and 07/3/2026, no effective communication or action was taken, Annexure A/3. Thereafter, the Sainik School, Jhansi, vide their letter dated 26/12/2025 again forwarded the willingness certificate, physical fitness certificate and result of passing PPT and firing test conducted under the aegis of 31 Artillery, Brigade Camp, signed by Lt Col NS Choudhary, Camp Commandant, 31 Arty Bde to the Armd Records with a copy to 54 Armd Regt vide letter dated 12/12/2025, Annexure A/4 & 5, respectively. Despite the applicant being medically fit and in SHAPE-I with no red ink entry in his service profile and having been graded outstanding in his ACRs as a JCO, the case of the applicant for grant of two years extension has allegedly not been forwarded/processed by the concerned authorities. Failure to process the case of the applicant for extension of service, despite his eligibility, medical fitness, clean disciplinary records, outstanding professional competence and expressed willingness, is arbitrary, unreasonable and has seriously prejudiced his service rights, career prospects and consequential retiral/service benefits. Having been aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents even after sending a Legal Notice dated 29/4/2026 through the counsel for the applicant to process and forward the Screening Board proceedings of the applicant, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 08/7/1998 and will be discharged from service on 31/7/2026


(AN) under the provisions of Rule 13 (3) item III (i)(a) of Army Rules 1954 on completion of terms of engagement in the rank of Risaldar, ie, after completion of 28 years of service as the applicant does not fulfil the criteria for further extension of service by two years. The applicant was posted on ERE tenure with the Sainik School, Jhansi wef 21/1/2024 to 04/2/2026. As per extant policy of Armd Corps Records, screening in respect of JCOs/OR on ERE will be done by the parent Regiment and, therefore, parent unit of the applicant asked for willingness/unwillingness certificate of the applicant and the applicant submitted his willingness certificate through the Sainik School Jhansi. Further, 54 Armd Regt requested Sainik School Jhansi to dispatch the applicant for screening for enhancement of service by two years vide their letter 17/11/2024. The applicant reported to the Regiment for screening and the screening board was conducted in the month of February 2025 wherein the applicant failed in small Arms Firing, Annexure R4 & 6. The occurrence has also been notified by the Regiment vide Part II Order dated 03/3/2025. The applicant again submitted a personal application and requested for reconsideration for grant of extension of service by two years. Letter dated 03/12/2025 was forwarded to the Sainik School, Jhansi for directing the Applicant to report to his parent unit, ie, 54 Armd Regiment. However, Sainik School, Jhansi forwarded Screening Board alongwith willingness and physical fitness certificate in respect of the applicant directly to the Armoured Corps Records under intimation to 54 Armd Regiment vide their letter dated 26/12/2025, which was received by the Regiment on 06/2/2026. It is pertinent to mention that the Regiment concerned of the applicant had taken up a case with the Armoured Corps Records to the effect that the extension of service by two years in respect of the applicant may only be granted to the applicant after due screening by his parent Regiment, ie, 54 Armd Regt as per policy in vogue under intimation to Sainik School, Jhansi, vide letter dated 14/2/2026. On completion of his ERE tenure with the Sainik School, the applicant was posted out from Sainik School, Jhansi and physically reported for duty to the Regiment on 14/2/2026 in Jodhpur as the Regiment was deployed in Pokhran Field Firing Range for its annual Field Firing. After culmination of annual field firing and various training commitment of the Regiment, a Board of officer conducted Screening of five Junior Commissioned Officers and one Other Rank (including the applicant) in the month of March 2026 in which all participants failed 

as they did not achieve the minimum passing standard as per policy in vogue, Annexure R/10. The Respondents have further submitted that the applicant has suppressed the material fact that he was screened by a duly constituted screening board in February 2025 and failed in small arms firing and has further suppressed the fact that on reconsideration of his request, he was again screened in March 2026 and failed to achieve the prescribed standards. Since all action have been taken strictly in accordance with the policy in vogue and the applicant has failed to qualify for enhancement of service, the instant OA is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

4. During the course of final hearing, Counsel for the Applicant has filed Rejoinder in response to the Reply Statement filed by the Respondents. Perusal of the same reflects that apart from the main issues covered in the OA, it has also been highlighted that the applicant was posted on ERE to Sainik School, Jhansi, a posting for which he was specifically selected by 54 Armd. Regt on account of his professional competence and service record. The sole ground for denial of extension is his alleged failure in Small Arms (SA) Firing in screening board of February 2025 and March 2026. A single point failure, set against 28 years of unblemished record and admitted fitness in every other respect, raises serious doubt as to whether that result was fairly and independently arrived at. Further, on the Respondents' own showing, the screening board was constituted by the Commanding Officer, 54 Armd. Regt, comprising himself and a junior officer subordinate to him. In contrast, screening conducted under 31 Artillery Brigade, an independent formation with no stake in the outcome certified the applicant's willingness, fitness and firing/PPT results as satisfactory, signed by the Camp Commandant, Lt. Col. NS Choudhary. Where two assessments of the same soldier yield opposite results, the assessment of the disinterested authority deserves greater weight than that of an interested party judging its own subordinates. Unlike PPT, which is time based and peer-verifiable in real time, the SA firing result depends entirely on physical inspection of the target to determine bullet impact, making it uniquely vulnerable to manipulation in the absence of independent verification.

5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 1

6. It is evident from the record that the applicant is due for discharge from service wef 31/7/2026 on completion of his terms of engagement in the rank of Risaldar after completion of 28 years of service under Rule 13 (3) item III (i) (a) of Army Rules 1954. As per the policy in vogue and in order to ascertain the suitability for grant of two years extension in service to the applicant, the parent unit of the applicant, ie, 54 Armd Regt, had convened a Board of Officers, comprising the Commandant of the Unit as the Chairman with five officers as its members. Perusal of copy of Screening Board placed on record reveals that all the six candidates with the applicant at serial No 1 in the list, who were screened for extension in service, failed in SA Firing conducted as part of the screening process. It is also evident from the record that despite directions of the Unit, the applicant was defiant in reporting to parent unit in time from the ERE Unit in undergoing the screening process and reported to the Unit at his wish only on culmination of his ERE tenure with the Sainik School, Jhansi, in Feb 2026. It is also prudent to observe that as the applicant was on his ERE tenure with the Sainik School Jhansi during that period when he was due for screening for consideration of his two years extension in service, the applicant tried to bypass the Commandant of the Unit by attending the Screening board at his ERE Station of another Unit, whereas it was the sole prerogative of the Commandant of his parent Unit, which thus, rightly rejected the said Screening Board and examined the applicant by his Unit as per Rules. We are not inclined to accept the facetious statement of the counsel for the applicant, made in the Rejoinder filed by him, that the Commandant, 54 Armoured Regiment, was biased against the applicant and the whole process in rejecting the applicant was aimed at creating a vacancy for a favoured junior JCO's promotion to Risaldar Major after the discharge of the applicant from service on 31/7/2026. We consider this audacious and malicious statement of counsel for the applicant that too without any solid proof as far fetched and pointing an accusing finger at the functioning of an active fighting Army Unit and its Commanding Officer, which is in bad taste and definitely not appreciated. Moreover, a copy of Small Arms Firing conducted by the Unit of the applicant on 21/3/2026 as part of the Screening Process clearly establishes that the all the six candidates were declared 'Unfit', which also shows that the process was conducted fairly, independently 

and impartially and without any bias against the applicant in particular in disqualifying him for his extension in service.

7. In view of the foregoing and since the applicant was declared 'Unfit' in the SA firing conducted as part of the Screening Process by the duly constituted Board of Officers headed by the Commandant of the Unit, we find no infirmity or illegality in the process adopted for screening the applicant for his suitability for grant of two years extension. The plea of the applicant for quashing the Screening Board and stay on his impending discharge from service on 31/7/2026 and other related prayers are rejected as the same are devoid of merit.


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

सत्यमेव जयते

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


**(SANJIV MITTAL)** **MEMBER (A)**

**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)** **MEMBER (J)**

cda/-