Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 616 (CAL)

Samar Nath Chakraborty v. Union of India

2000-12-07

PRATAP KUMAR RAY, S.B.Sinha

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.6.2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.7149(W) of 2000 where by and whereunder the writ application filed by the petitioner/appellant was dismissed. The appellant has not annexed a copy of the writ application to the stay application. However, at our request, the learned counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of the writ application before us, from a perusal whereof it appears that therein the following prayers were made: "a) A writ in the nature of mandamus- i) Commanding the respondents and each of them to act and proceed in accordance with the law. ii) Commanding the respondents and each of them to allow your petitioner to join in the service. iii) Commdanding the respondents and each of them to recall/rescind and/or withdraw the said purported discharge letter. Dated 31.7.1997 and restraining the respondents and each of them from proceedings further on the basis of the purported letter. b) A writ in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents and each of them to transmit and certify to this Hon'ble Court all the service records of the petitioner so that your petitioner may get conscionable justice from the Hon'ble High Court." 2. Neither in the writ application nor in the stay application before us the appellant has annexed his appointment letter. According to the respondent, in terms of the Army Manual a person enters into the army service only after attestation takes place. In fact it stands admitted that he was undergoing training. It also stands admitted that warning letter was issued to the appellant/petitioner that in case you fail to pass the trade test even in the 4th chance, suitable action will be initiated to discharge you from service on the plea that you are "unlikely to become as efficient soldier craftsman". Even from a letter dated 26.5.97 as contained in annexure "p-l" to the stay application it appears that the appellant has been described therein a trainee undergoing course No.37/96-97 which clearly shows a status of the petitioner. We/are, therefore, of the opinion that in the aforementioned situation the provision of section 23 of the Army Act to which Mr. Bag, learned counsel, has strongly relied upon has no application in the instant case. . 3. We/are, therefore, of the opinion that in the aforementioned situation the provision of section 23 of the Army Act to which Mr. Bag, learned counsel, has strongly relied upon has no application in the instant case. . 3. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. 4. For the reason aforementioned, both the appeal and the application are dismissed. Appeal and application dismissed.