JANARDAN SAHAI, J. - (1.) THESE are 8 connected petitions involving the same controversy and the same questions of law and facts. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri P.N. Chaturvedi has argued the case of Sunil Yadav as the leading case and it has been stated that the other cases be decided accordingly. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has also made a statement that all the cases be decided on the basis of the decision in Sunil Yadav's case. We are accordingly disposing of all these cases by a common order and have treated Sunil Yadav's case i.e., TA No. 204 of 2009 as the leading case and the facts which have been stated in this order are the facts of that petition.
(2.) THE petitioners in all these cases were enrolled in the Indian Army af­ter success in the All India Test for enrollment of Clerks, the result of which was declared on 1.1.2007. The petitioner Sunil Yadav was enrolled on 18.1.2007. After enrollment the petitioners were required to do the Basic Military Training (BMT) for a period of 19 weeks and after successful completion thereof, a further training course of Clerks for a period of 32 weeks. Under the policy of the Army Headquarters, dated 23.5.1999, Annexure 9 to the petition, which, according to the petitioners, was applicable to them, the petitioners were re­quired to appear in a proficiency and aptitude test, which was to be held on the sixth day (Saturday) from the date of commencement of the Basis Training Course. Those who were unsuccessful were entitled to appear in a special test to be held in the eleventh week of the BMT. Those who had taken the test for the first time in the eleventh week, but were unsuccessful were eligible to take the second chance in the test to be held in the sixteenth week of the BMT. The min­imum passing marks in the proficiency and aptitude test under this policy were 15% and the candidates were to be examined in three subjects, namely, Mathematics, General English and General Knowledge. Those candidates, who had failed in both the tests were yet to be considered for re-musteration for other trades. The petitioners appeared in the proficiency and aptitude test on 12.4.2007 and their case is that they were successful land that is why they were allowed to complete the entire BMT of 19 weeks and were later on al­lowed to attend the Passing Out Parade (POP), which according to learned Counsel for the petitioner could be attended only by those who had successfully completed the BMT. The petitioners thereafter were granted 28 days leave, which according to the petitioner's Counsel is also permissible only to those who had successfully completed the BMT. However, instead of allowing the petitioners to complete the 32 weeks training course of clerks, the petitioners were given a show cause notice dated 9.8.2007 stating that the petitioners were unsuccessful in the proficiency and aptitude test held on 12.4.2007 and in the change of trade test held on 23.7.2007 and as to why they be not discharged from service. The petitioners gave reply to the show cause notice. A copy of the reply given by the petitioner Sunil Yadav is annexed with the counter affi­davit as part of Annexure-CA-4. In that reply, the petitioner Sunil Yadav has admitted that he was unsuccessful in the proficiency and aptitude test, but has attributed his failure to various reasons which can be compendiously described as having been given by the authorities less time for preparation by keeping him involved in other activities. In para-14 of the petition, it is stated that this reply was not a voluntary one and the petitioners were deceived by the training staff that if they gave a reply as dictated they would be allowed to appear in a second test and it was under compulsion that such reply was given. The respondents, however, discharged the petitioners by order dated 22.8.2007 signed by the Company Commander, Ghaznee Company and not by the Commanding Officer of No. 1 Training Battalion the competent authority. Aggrieved, the petitioners made a petition to the GOC-in-C, Central Command, Lucknow dated 25.9.2007. This petition was rejected on 19.2.2008. The petitioners thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 2466 of 2008 in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Counter and rejoinder affidavits were ex­changed in the petition and the records were thereafter transferred to the Tribunal in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. In the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a supplementary counter affidavit to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.
(3.) WE have heard Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the appli­cants and Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respon­dents.;