Ex Rect Yogendra Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 14 August 2025

1. 1. UOI, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi

2. 2. The Central Commandant/Commanding Officer, Bombay Engineer Group & Centre, Kirkee, Pune – 03, Maharashtra

.... Respondents

<table> <tr> <td>For Applicant</td> <td>: Mr Sanjay Rahar, Advocate</td> </tr> <tr> <td>For Respondents</td> <td>: Mr Pradeep Mathur, Advocate</td> </tr> </table>

**CORAM:**

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

**O R D E R****14/08/2025**

1. 1. By way of this Application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of verbal discharge dated 24/12/2008 whereby the petitioner (hereinafter called the Applicant) has been discharged from service, the applicant had filed SB Civil Writ Petition No 2354/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur, prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and that the discharge order dated 24/12/2008 passed verbally by the respondents be quashed and set aside and the Respondents be directed to take the applicant back into service with all consequential benefits. As an interim prayer the applicant had also prayed for stay on the discharge order dated 24/12/2008 passed verbally by the Respondents till the final disposal of the Writ Petition.

2. With the inception of the Armed Forces Tribunal Jaipur Bench, the Hon'ble High Court, vide Order dated 16/12/2009, transferred the said Writ Petition to this Tribunal to adjudicate the case. The WP was received at this Tribunal on 04/2/2010 and numbered as TA No 7/2010.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that, the Applicant was enrolled in the Army as a Clerk on 24/1/2008 after all the formalities such as physical and medical tests and other Clerical Tests were completed. The applicant reported to the Training Centre in Pune where he was allotted Training Battalion No 2 and Platoon No 1036 for training. He had attended all the classes regularly and passed the tests. The Clerks' Training School is situated at Training Battalion No 1, where the recruits have to attend classes for one month and thereafter they have to appear for a test. The applicant was not sent to training battalion No 1 for one month but was sent only for four days from the training battalion No 2 to attend the classes. The authorities at the training battalion No 2 informed the applicant that there has been a serious lapse as the applicant had not been sent to training battalion No 1 to attend the classes at Clerks' School and was then told to attend the classes at clerks' school in training battalion No 1. The applicant had to appear for the test held on 31/5/2008 at clerks' school only after four days of attendance despite the fact that he should have been sent from training battalion No 2 to attend the classes for one month. The result of the test held on 31/5/2008 at Clerks' School in Training Battalion No 1 was also not disclosed to the applicant and he was sent on leave after completing his basic training. After availing the leave, the applicant underwent two weeks of training for Field Engineering and two weeks of Bridging Training which are meant for the clerk trade. One fine day the Head Clerk of the Respondent No 2 informed the applicant that the applicant had failed the test held on 31/5/2008 and now the applicant will have to change his trade. The applicant requested that he be given another chance/to appear for test in the test for clerk but the Head Clerk told the applicant that no second opportunity would be given and either he writes an application requesting to change of trade or go back to his home. Since the applicant is from a very poor family and his financial position was very weak and under duress and coercion from the Head Clerk and the authorities, the applicant unwillingly wrote an application requesting for change of trade. However, the applicant was told that he will not be allowed to change his trade and he shall be discharged and he was discharged from service on 30/9/2008. Since there was a lapse on the part of the Head Clerk as he had not sent the applicant to attend the Clerks' School, a Court of Inquiry was held, the conclusion of which was not disclosed to the applicant but he was issued an outpass on 17/10/2008, which was valid for a month from 17/10/2008 to 17/11/2008 to attend the classes at the Clerks' School, Annexure A/1. The applicant was also orally intimated that he had already cleared/passed the clerks' test and was told to continue with the trade work and the applicant continued with trade work from 03/11/2008 to 17/11/2008. The outpass issued to the applicant expired and the applicant was told that the result of the clerk's test would be intimated to him in due course. The applicant further submits that the Head Clerk told him that his identity card No 545 issued to him earlier had been destroyed on 04/12/2008 and a new identity card would be issued to him and the same was issued to the applicant on the same day bearing No 3212. Thus the applicant underwent training/service without identity card for about two months. The salary/stipend had been paid to the applicant only upto the month of July 2008 and has not been paid thereafter except for the month of November 2008. On 24/12/2008, the applicant was discharged verbally from service/training without assigning any reason despite many requests from the applicant. The discharge of the applicant has been absolutely arbitrary and whimsical and no reason whatsoever has been assigned or disclosed to the applicant regarding his discharge despite many requests. Having been aggrieved by this arbitrary and whimsical action of the Respondents, the applicant sent a legal notice dated 09/1/2009 for demand of justice, but the Respondents have not replied to the notice till date nor taken any action in favour of the applicant. Under the circumstances, the applicant had filed the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court praying for relief.

A small, rectangular, light gray area, possibly a redacted signature or stamp.

4. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement to the Writ Petition and have submitted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28/12/2007 as a Clerk from the Branch Recruiting Office, Jhunjhunu. He was declared fit provisionally with respect to his qualification and medical standard for the trade of Clerk and reported to Training Battalion No 2 for training. The Respondents had categorically stated that the trade of Clerk is governed by the policy laid down in the Army HQ letter No A/20335/1/GS (MT-5) dated 17/3/2003, which stipulates that the candidates have to pass the clerks aptitude test in the 10^th week of Basic Military Training, Annexure R/1. In case an applicant fails to qualify, he is offered other trade based on availability of vacancies of his state and subject to his fulfilment of medical criteria for the trade. In case one does not meet the criteria of the alternate trade he will be discharged. He was allotted Army No as per the existing procedure and he attended the basic military training and passed physical test in BMT phase. The applicant failed in the clerical aptitude test held in the 10^th week of BMT Phase as per the policy stipulated in the Army HQ ibid letter. He was considered for re-mustering to Soldier/tradesmen category. Since there was no vacancy released against OIC Category of Rajasthan and Bihar for Soldiers (General Division/Soldiers Tradesmen), he was recommended for discharge from service. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from service on 24/12/2008 in consequence of his "unlikely to become an efficient soldier", under Rule 13 (3) Item IV of Army Rules 1954 and HQ BEG Centre letter No 1275/Disc/48/General Staff (Training) dated 20/11/2008. The Respondents have reiterated that as per policy, the test is conducted only once during recruit training during the 10^th week of basic military training for which 40% marks is the requisite cut off marks in this aptitude test and those recruits who do not qualify the test should be remustered or disposed off. At the instance of the applicant, a letter written by him was forwarded to the higher HQ for their consideration. The applicant had adequate time to prepare for the test like his counterparts. Contra to the allegation about the conduct of court of inquiry and the role of the Head Clerk, the Respondents have stated that neither a court of inquiry was ever conducted nor the Head Clerk had any authority or role in the case of the applicant in determining the case of the applicant. Since the applicant had failed in the aptitude test conducted during 10^th week of basic military training and since there was no vacancy available at that particular time for his remustering into other trade, the applicant was discharged from service on 24/12/2008 under Rule 13 (3) IV of Army Rules 1954 under the clause, "unlikely to become an efficient soldier". The Respondents have further submitted that as per Directorate General of Military Training, IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 17/3/2003, every recruit clerk has only one chance to pass the test, those clerk not passing aptitude test are required to be remustered to other trade as per available vacancies otherwise they will be discharged from service. Also, out of 24 individuals who appeared for the test, only two recruits failed and all other candidates passed the test. Respondents have also filed reply to the additional affidavit filed by the Counsel for the applicant and reiterated that a candidate was declared fit provisionally with respect to his qualification and medical standard for clerk trade. However, final selection for clerk trade is governed by the policy contained in IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 17/3/2003 which stipulates that the individual has to pass the clerks aptitude test which is held in the 10^th week of Basic Military Training, Annexure R/1. In case an individual fails to qualify, he is offered other trade based on availability of vacancies of his state and subject to his fulfilment of medical criteria for the trade. In case one does not meet the criteria of the alternate trade, he will be discharged from service. Accordingly, the aptitude test was conducted on 31/5/2008 in which the applicant was declared failed, Annexure R/2. No test was conducted on 01/11/2008 at the Clerk School, Bombay Engineer Group & Centre as alleged by the counsel for the applicant. Respondents have further stated that the outpass which was given to the applicant to attend the classes was an inadvertent action taken by the then Company Commander.

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

6. It could be seen from the record that the applicant was enrolled in the Bombay Engineer Group provisionally on 28/12/2007 as a Clerk. As is mandated by the policy formulated by the Army HQ vide letter No A/20335/1/GS/MT-5 dated 17/3/2003, the Clerk Aptitude Test was held in the 10^th week of the Basic Military Training on 31/5/2008, in which the applicant was declared failed by scoring the below threshold mark required to pass the test. Based on the willingness submitted by the applicant,

the Respondents have made concerted efforts to remuster the applicant to Soldier (General Duty) as requested by the applicant, however, since there was no vacancy released against QIC Category for Rajasthan for Soldier (General Duty), the applicant was discharged from service wef 24/12/2008 under the clause, "unlikely to become an efficient soldier" under Rule 13 (3) IV of Army Rules, 1954. It is also observed that in order to explore the possibility of remustering the applicant to Soldier (General Duty) as desired by him, he was detained at the Regimental Centre purely as a welfare measure on humanitarian grounds and the applicant was finally discharged from service on 24/12/2008 on receipt of confirmation from the Centre HQ about the non availability of alternate vacancy. Since the Training Battalion No 2 where he was undergoing training was eight kms away from the HRDC-3, trainees going out for their personal work or to Group HQ from the Training Battalion is given outpass to move out of the installation. We are abreast, that all encompassing Basic Military Training is imparted to recruits to make the future soldiers combat ready not only to face all the eventualities of the uniform, but also excel in their respective trade work in their later service to the Army and to the Nation. Towards that end, Army HQ issues comprehensive guidelines/policies to be followed from time to time after taking into consideration issues involved in the overall interest of the Organisation. Therefore, the proficiency Aptitude Test for Clerk Trade is conducted during the tenth week to ascertain suitability of the person to work as a Clerk in an active Unit. What was required to be done in the Aptitude Test was to regurgitate the lessons taught during the training/classes and failure to obtain even the minimum pass marks in the Test clearly shows that the applicant was not fit to be an efficient clerk. Moreover, nobody at the Regimental Centre would have gained any reward/benefit by discharging the applicant owing to his below par standard. Therefore, we find no illegality and/or infirmity in the action taken by the Respondents in discharging the applicant as "unlikely to become an efficient soldier". Prayer of the applicant, for quashing and setting aside the discharge order and reinstating the applicant in service has no merit and is rejected.

7. The case of the applicant herein is squarely covered by the Judgment dated 06/5/2009 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Dipak Kumar Santra, 2009 (8) SCR 281, Civil Appeal No 8535 of 2002, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of discharge of a recruit who had failed in Aptitude Test.

8. The TA is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order on costs.

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

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

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

*cda/-*