Bhagwati Prasad, J. - (1.) The respondent-writ-petitioner was initially employed as Sepoy in Army. He worked as Cook from 1979 to 1986. He was enrolled as Combatant Sepoy. During his services, he was promoted as Lance Nayak Cook in January, 1986. While he was serving in the Army as Cook, in October, 1986 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his services should not be dispensed with. The notice was issued to the petitioner in the background that the petitioner had developed conjunctivitis. There was excess discharge of water in the eyes of the petitioner. The notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 13 item (3)(v) of the Army Rules, 1954. Clause (v) of the A/my Rules 13(3)'deals with all other classes of discharge from service. Clause (iii) of the same rule deals with those who are to be discharged having been found medically unfit for further service. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. In his reply, the petitioner submitted that the Medical Officer directed him to Psychiatrist. The Psychiatrist has in his medical opinion expressed that he is not suffering from any psychiatric dis-order. The only thing directed against the petitioner was that he had some problem with the eyes and except that problem otherwise the petitioner was found fit. Not only this, the Medical Officer who examined the petitioner even recommended that the petitioner can be considered for alternative employment. The case of the respondent writ petitioner was that his case was not considered for alternative employment. The respondent-writ-petitioner had to come to this Court for getting his case considered all over again. Not only this, he was even required to file a Contempt Petition before this court and the same contempt notices were discharged after tendering of un-conditional apology by the respondent-contemnor. the appellant (respondent in the trial court) failed to produce before the Court the orders of recommendations of the case of the petitioner which was directed by this Court earlier.
(2.) The medical report which was the basis of medical opinion contained in the discharge certificate of the petitioner shows that the petitioner was in medical category AYE at the time of release. In the discharge certificate the petitioner was found to have conducted himself with exemplary character. In this background, learned single Judge considered the case of the petitioner and found that the petitioner deserve to be considered for alternative employment because Medical Officer only found him unfit as a cook but recommended him for alternative assignment.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for Union of India Mr. P. P. Chaudhary submitted that in terms of Army Order 24/25 issued in the month of March, 1981 it has been observed that for re-mustering there will be restrictions and such restrictions were that re-mustering could be within two years of the date of mustering and not more than four years of total service. This restriction, according to learned counsel for the appellant, is contained in sub-clause (b) of Clause 7 of the aforesaid Army Order and, therefore, the learned single Judge ought not have directed the consideration of case of the petitioner for reemployment.;