KU VEENA AMBEDKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for quashment of order dated 25-4-97 passed by the respondent No. 3 and further to issue a direction to allow the petitioner to attend the Eleventh WSES (Officers) Course commencing with effect from September, 1997 and to condone the age of the petitioner as she belongs to Scheduled Caste and for passing of such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfolded in the writ petition are that an advertisement was published vide Anncxure P-1 inviting applications from unmarried females or issueless widows/divorcees candidates for grant of commission in the Indian Army. The petitioner submitted her application alongwith the documents in proof of her qualification and age on the due date i. e. , 14-1-97 for undergoing Women Special Entry Scheme (Officers ). The said application has been brought on record as Document No. 2. It is pleaded in the petition that she is a daughter of Ex-Army Officer and deserves to be given concession which are given to sons and daughters of Ex-Soldiers of Army, Navy and Air Force as per declaration given by Chief of Army Staff, respondent No. 2 herein. It has been setforth that the petitioner belongs to recognised Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and hence, her case could not have been rejected on the ground of over age. It is urged in the petition that the respondents have violated the instructions contained in Central Government Office Memorandum in the matters relating to relaxation and concession for Scheduled 'caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in the matter of recruitment/direct recruitment in service. The said circular deals with the relaxation and concession of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates and it has been brought on record as Document No. 5. It has also been urged that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of Articles 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution of India. With these averments it has been pleaded that the age limit prescribed in the advertisement should have been condoned as far as the petitioner is concerned.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that no concession is permissible for appointment to the children of Ex-Servicemen. It is pleaded that the defence services are special services and requirement of qualification and other factors are insisted upon to strengthen the service and standard and relaxation of age which holds good for civil service is not applicable for defence services. It has been specifically putforth that the petitioner is over age by 2 months, and hence, her case cannot be taken up for consideration. It has been setforth that circular contained in Document No. 5 is not applicable to the defence services and, therefore, the question of condoning of delays does not arise. It has also been pleaded that no notification for reservation has been made for services which deals with defence and in absence of specific notification the respondents are bound to adhere to the mandate of the advertisement.