JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. J Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G Pegu, the learned CGC for the respondents. 2. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that he applied for the post of Clerk (Staff Duty) in the Indian Army in the open rally held on 13.02.2015 at Khunsa in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner came out successful in the open rally after participating in the physical test and medical examination and was issued an Admit Card, whereby, the date for written examination was fixed for 31.05.2015. Upon undertaking the said examination, the name of the petitioner appeared in the list of successful candidates (Annexure-4) and his name appeared at Serial No. 447 of the merit list. Not having received any communication from the respondent authorities for a long time, the petitioner, on 15.02.2016 approached the respondent No.3 to find out when he will be dispatched for the training. The respondent No. 3 then asked the petitioner to report to the Army Recruiting Officer, Narangi on 18.03.2016 for medical examination. 3. The petitioner, accordingly, appeared before the said authority and got himself medically re-examined and upon such examination, the petitioner was found to be fit. However, while the petitioner was expecting to be despatched for the training, he received a communication dated 23.05.2016 (Annexure-8) which was in reply to the application submitted by the petitioner for allowing him to join in the post of Clerk (Staff Duty). A communication dated 30.04.2016 (Anenxure-9) was enclosed in the letter dated 23.05.2016, whereby, it was stated that the Army Recruiting Office on 31.07.2015 had intimated the petitioner to report to the said office on 01.09.2015 but as the petitioner failed to report on the given date and since nothing was heard from him till 30.11.2015, the petitioner was contacted over phone in the month of December, 2015, wherein, it was found that the petitioner was outstation and had gone to Goa looking for a job. In such circumstances, it was communicated that the despatch period had expired and that he was no longer eligible to be despatched for the training. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr. In such circumstances, it was communicated that the despatch period had expired and that he was no longer eligible to be despatched for the training. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr. J Islam, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner never received a call letter from the respondent authorities asking him to report in the Army Recruiting Office on 01.09.2015. In fact the petitioner was all along waiting to be despatched for the training and since no information was received from the respondent authorities, the petitioner on 15.02.2016 approached the respondent No. 3, who, thereafter, advised him to get himself medically re-examined. 5. Upon being found to be medically fit, the petitioner was waiting for information from the respondent authorities to be despatched for the training. Having not received any response, the petitioner filed his representation to the respondent No. 3 on 07.05.2016 and in reply to which the petitioner on 23.05.2016 was intimated that as he had failed to report on 01.09.2015, the petitioner was no longer eligible for being despatched still the stipulated period is already over. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had the petitioner received such intimation he would have reported for being despatched on the given date. He also submits that having been found successful in the test and examination conducted, the respondent authorities cannot deny him from being despatched for training for the post of Clerk (Staff Duty) in the Indian Army for none of his fault and therefore, prays for a suitable direction by this Court. 7. Appearing for the respondents, the learned CGC, Mr. Pegu submits that the petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities to report himself for being despatched for the training vide letter dated 31.07.2015. However, the petitioner did not report even during the last 60 days period by which time, he could have still been dispatched, the respondent No. 3 had no option but to seek instructions from the appropriate authority as the petitioner reported only on 27.02.2016 i.e., beyond 180 days. The respondent No. 3, therefore, on his part recommended the case of the petitioner for sanction by the appropriate authority for being despatched to the Training Centre. However, vide communication dated 22.04.2016, the respondent No. 2 did not agree in sending the petitioner for the training since the petitioner had failed to report on due date. The respondent No. 3, therefore, on his part recommended the case of the petitioner for sanction by the appropriate authority for being despatched to the Training Centre. However, vide communication dated 22.04.2016, the respondent No. 2 did not agree in sending the petitioner for the training since the petitioner had failed to report on due date. 8. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned CGC relies upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents on 10.02.2017, whereby, it has been contended that the petitioner cannot be despatched for training since he reported belatedly and the despatch period in the meantime had expired. The competent authority therefore rejected the petitioner’s claim. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, it may be noticed from the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents that although the written communication requiring him to report to the Army Recruiting Officer was sent to the petitioner on 31.07.2015, the address of the petitioner has been given as Batibari, whereas, the petitioner’s village is Datirbori. Furthermore, when the petitioner approached the respondent No. 3 on 15.02.2016, the petitioner was sent for medical re-examination on 17.03.2016 and upon such examination, he was found to be fit. The respondent authorities on 31.12.2015 had also written to the Deputy Commissioner of Barpeta District to verify the permanent residency of the petitioner and on the same date another letter was sent to the Chairman of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam for verification of the educational certificate submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner was required to report to the Army Recruiting Office on 01.09.2015 and when the petitioner did not report in terms of the calling letter, there was no reason to get the residency and the educational status of the petitioner verified. 10. However, the respondent authorities not only make such verification but also asked the petitioner to take medical re-examination on 17.03.2016. However, due to the delay in reporting, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 3 could not decide the matter at this level and therefore, recommended the petitioner for being considered by the appropriate authority, i.e., the respondent No. 2 vide the minute sheet dated 21.03.2016. The respondent No. 2, upon considering the minute sheet vide dated 22.04.2016 disagreed with the recommendation on account of the petitioner’s failure to report on time. The respondent No. 2, upon considering the minute sheet vide dated 22.04.2016 disagreed with the recommendation on account of the petitioner’s failure to report on time. However, the respondent No. 2 in coming to such a conclusion besides mentioning that the petitioner failed to report on due date as can be seen has not clarified or given any reason as to why the petitioner cannot be despatched and summarily rejected the case of the petitioner. The decision of the respondent No. 2 in my considered opinion should have been preceded by proper examination on the delay and with an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the delay. The petitioner, on the other hand, had clearly informed the authorities about the non-receipt of the communication dated 31.07.2015 and which in fact was wrongly addressed. The petitioner otherwise had duly qualified for the post in the recruitment rally as well as in the written examination and was found medically fit. 11. In such circumstances, only for want of non-reporting on time and that too due to improper communication to the petitioner, I find that the petitioner deserves to be despatched for the training. The delay in reporting can always be looked into by the appropriate authority considering the facts and circumstances leading to the same. 12. In the instant case, apparently the petitioner could not have reported as was required on 01.09.2015. Under such circumstances, the impugned communication dated 30.04.2016 (Annexure-9) in my considered opinion warrants interference and is accordingly set aside. 13. Mr. Pegu, the learned CGC at this stage submits that out of turn despatch cannot be made and in fact despatch are made on yearly basis. The persons, who have selected in terms of the rally organized in the month of February, 2015 have already completed their training. 14. Considering the fact that such despatch are made on annual basis the respondent authorities are directed to send the petitioner for training as and when the next batch of candidates are to be sent. The question of the petitioner being overage would not debar him from being sent for the training but however, the despatch of the petitioner would be subject to he being declared fit in a medical re-examination to be conducted by the respondent authorities prior to the next despatch. The question of the petitioner being overage would not debar him from being sent for the training but however, the despatch of the petitioner would be subject to he being declared fit in a medical re-examination to be conducted by the respondent authorities prior to the next despatch. The Army Recruiting Officer shall inform and communicate the petitioner as and when the next despatch is to be made and when the petitioner should report himself before the said authority. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.