Vijay Kumar Roy vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

One aspect is not in issue that the Petitioner was a boy scout during the year 1983 and others similar with him were boys scouts during 1984, 1985 and 1986. They were sponsored as part of their boys scouts training to offer voluntary services to assist the railway administration in a programme for the eradication of ticket less travel and for maintaining cleanliness at the railways station. All these youngsters at the relevant time were wards of railway employees. This is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The assignment which the Petitioner had to handle was to inculcate civic sense amongst those using the facilities of the railway administration. Their mission was (a) to educate passengers not to travel except with a ticket and (b) to keep the railway station clean. These are parts of duties of a good boy scout.

The boy scouts having volunteered themselves, the railway administration paid them rupees 8/- per day as pocket allowance or refreshment allowance. This may be called as pocket money for community services rendered. Admittedly, if anybody claims that he was a boy scout then at the relevant time he should have been a student at a school. This in itself implies that none of the Petitioners in the normal course would have been beyond the age of majority.

They did community service for 2 days to 54 days. As about 13 years rolled by, some of the Petitioners got a bright idea that they possibly could lay a claim for employment on the railway administration. This aspect itself does look rather strange and violative of the Code of Honour of the boy scouts who ventured out to do community service as school boys and their services were understood as voluntary service rendered.

Unfortunately, in the year 1996 after more than 10 years, the Petitioners and others some how obtained certificates that they have rendered services with the railway administration. This aspect is mentioned in paragraph 17 of the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. This certification which the Petitioner arranged for having worked with the railway administration does not inspire confidence as it was obtained after ten years since the school boys as boy scouts had discharged community service.

Now the Petitioner says, there were others before the CAT, that the Tribunal has erred in not giving him relief so as to provide employment with the railway administration. The Court is of the view that the Tribunal has committed no error. Plainly, the Petitioner has violated his Code of Honour as a boy scout. He cannot convert community services 10 to 13 years after he had discharged it and claim that the Government of India is liable to give him an appointment. If this continues to happen it would erode the faith of the government department whenever boys scouts and girls guides are sent for community services should the exigency so arises and their sponsorship for community services as part of their training will not be accepted.

The claim which the Petitioner laid is unethical. The petition is ill-advised.

Dismissed.