O.A. No. 314 of 2011. Case: Capt. Prabhat Chaturvedi Vs Union of India & Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 314 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Manglik, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Anil Gautam, Advocate |
| Judges | Mr. A.K. Mathur, Chairperson and Lt. Gen. S.S. Dhillon, Member |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | May 28, 2012 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
(Principal Bench At New Delhi)
-
Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the order dated 16th June 2011 may be quashed having been issued ignoring the service condition laid down in the advertisement on the basis of which the Petitioner joined the Army Medical Corps (AMC). It is also prayed that the Respondents may be directed to consider the Petitioner for grant of permanent commission by conducting a Review Board and lastly that he may be allowed to avail all the three chances for permanent commission. Petitioner applied for Short Service Commission in AMC in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Central Government dated 15-21st December 2007. The date of birth of the Petitioner is 15th May 1978. The terms and conditions regarding age limit read as under:
Age Limit: The candidate must not have attained 45 years of age on 31st December 2007. It may be noted that, the maximum age limit for MBBS degree and Post Graduate Diploma/Degree holders desirous of Permanent Commission, on becoming eligible during service, will be 30 years and 31/35 years respectively as on 31st December 2007 while applying for SSC.
-
He was commissioned in Army as a Medical Officer on 11th April 2008 and he joined the service on 25th April 2008. He was below 30 years of age on 31st December 2007. Thereafter the question came up for Permanent Commission as per the conditions laid down in the advertisement dated 15-21st December 2007. He submitted the application for Permanent Commission to the Directorate General Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) but he could not succeed in the first chance as the name of the Petitioner did not find mention in the result dated 16th May 2011. Thereafter he applied for a second time for grant of Permanent Commission but Respondents did not entertain his application and, therefore, he was not called for interview and selection for second time. Since he was not called for second time, therefore, Petitioner made some representations and ultimately filed the present petition before this Tribunal for the aforesaid reliefs.
-
A reply was filed by the Respondents and the Respondents contested the matter and submitted that the Petitioner has not been rightly called because as per the advertisement he was not eligible as he has already attained the age of 30 years on 31st December 2008 but because some anomaly occurred in the advertisement therefore one chance was given to such persons by the order dated 15th June 2009 of the DGAFMS which was also availed by the Petitioner. Since he failed to secure 50% marks, therefore, he could not be appointed. It is also admitted that there was a mistake in the advertisement dated 15-21st December 2007 mentioning the date as 31st December 2007 whereas as per the conditions of service contained in Annexure A to Army Instructions 74/76 the clause (4) "age limit? reads as under:
Age limits
(a) Candidate...
To continue reading
Request your trial