Jan Singh and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

(Passed on 21st day of April, 2009)

The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus/direction, inter alia, not to conduct fresh training course of Armorer without declaring the result of the petitioners, who have already undergone training course of Armorer.

The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners are constables of Chhattisgarh Armed Forces. They were selected by order dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure P/2) to undergo Armorer training and accordingly, they have undergone training from 15.01.2007 to 19.05.2007. In the midst of the training, the training course was cancelled and no result was declared thereafter.

Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners ought to have been given priority in sending them again for training course as they have completed more than half of the training course as without any fault on their part, the course has been declared cancelled. The respondents are proceeding with a fresh batch ignoring the claim of the petitioners completely knowing fully well that the training course of the petitioners have been cancelled in the midst of the course. Shri Shrivastava further submits that new persons are being sent for training course without giving any weightage or preference to the petitioners who have already completed 828 period of the training course.

Shri Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, on the basis of return dated 10.09.2008, submits as under:

It is respectfully submitted that, a number of irregularities and deviations from fixed norms stipulated for the training for Armorer were revealed to the answering respondents. It is further submitted that on account of acute shortage of the training staff and other related shortcomings, only 828 periods could be undertaken as against the desired number of 1296 periods. It is submitted that, a number of relevant courses pertaining to weapons training for advanced weapons like AK-47, Insas 5.56 m.m., 2" mortar, Tear Gas Gun etc. could not be undertaken and even the browning course could not be undertaken due to aforesaid reasons. It is further submitted that, since the post of Armorer is of extreme importance, sensitive and technically crucial, the answering respondents constituted an enquiry committee to examine the cause of delay in declaring the result. It is further submitted that, according to report dated 04.09.2008 submitted by the Committee, the aforesaid findings were ascertained and hence, it was expedient on the part of the answering respondents to cancel the entire course for selection of Constable Armorers. Hence, on account of aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

Be that as it may, the petitioners cannot be faulted with for the defects and deficiencies in the training programme. It is evident that the petitioners have completed 828 periods of the total desired 1296 periods. It is therefore incumbent on the respondent-authorities to allow the petitioners to complete the remaining period of the training course.

Having regard to the facts situation of the case, I do not find any reason not to give preference to the petitioners/constables, who have competed 828 period of training course. It is always better if the training is in continuation. The petitioners are entitled to preference and weightage.

Accordingly, it is directed that while sending other constables for Armorer training course, the respondent authorities should consider granting weightage or preference to the petitioners.

In view of the foregoing, this petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs.