Full Judgment Text
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.07.2023
+ W.P. (C) 9903/2023 & CM. APPL. 38100/2023
CORPORAL KUMA VAT SAGAR NANA .... PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .... RESPONDENTS
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajeet Yadav, Mr. Pradeep Shukla, Mr. M.M. Gaur and
Mr. R.K. Antil, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr.
Kabir Kumar Hazarika, Advocates.
Sqn. Ldr. Mr. M.N. Khan and Sgt. Mr. Vikash Kumar.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 21.07.2023, whereby the interim
application filed by the petitioner before the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking grant of permission to take
admission at Indian Institute of Management, Jammu for higher
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
Signing Date:28.07.2023
14:52:34
W.P. (C) 9903/2023 Page 1 of 5
education, was declined. Petitioner, who is an Airman in Indian Air
Force, had applied for permission for appearing in the Common
Aptitude Test (CAT-2022), however, the application for permission
was not processed on the ground that the same was not permissible in
terms of the policy of the Air Force. Despite that, petitioner took the
test and claims to have qualified the same and has secured admission
in the course.
2. Petitioner seeks leave from the respondent and in the alternative
discharge from the Air Force for pursuing the course. It is contended
by learned counsel for petitioner that the course is required for his
career progression.
3. Petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, which was
transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, whereby petitioner had
sought to challenge the policy of the respondent whereby permission
is being denied to the petitioner for pursuing the course.
4. Learned counsel for respondents relies on a decision of the
Supreme Court dated 07.12.2017 in SLP (C) 16448/2017, titled Union
of India & Ors. Vs. CPL BK Verma , wherein the Supreme Court has
held as under:-
“ The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated
20.02.2017 passed by the Delhi High Court in WP (C)
No. 5952/2016.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
Signing Date:28.07.2023
14:52:34
W.P. (C) 9903/2023 Page 2 of 5
The respondent, who is an Airman with the Air Force,
applied for study leave to undergo M.Tech course at
IIT, Dhanbad. The request was rejected by the
concerned authorities and the respondent challenged
this by filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court.
It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition
which ultimately allowed and during the pendency of
the proceedings in this Court directed against the
judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court, the
respondent was allowed to continue with his studies.
The petitioners are objecting to the continuation of the
studies of the respondent as well as granting him study
leave on the ground that the grant of study leave is only
permissible to officers of the Air Force who have put in
15 years of service and their course of study would be
beneficial to the Air Force. In so far as the respondent
is concerned, he is neither an officer in the Air Force
nor has he put in 15 years of service and the course he
is attending would not, according to the Air Force, be of
any benefit to the Air Force.
The High Court took the view that it would be
discriminatory not to allow the respondent who is an
Airman to take the course of M.Tech in IIT, Dhanbad.
Unfortunately, we are not in agreement with the view
expressed by the High Court. There is no question of
discrimination. There is a policy announced by the Air
Force with regard to grant of study leave and if the
respondent does not fall within contours of the policy, it
cannot be helped. The Courts may not be satisfied with
the policy but if any modifications are to be made, it is
for the Air Force to take a call. The Court ought not to
substitute its opinion for that of the Air Force.
Under the circumstances, the order passed by the High
Court is set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
Signing Date:28.07.2023
14:52:34
W.P. (C) 9903/2023 Page 3 of 5
The special leave petition is disposed of. ”
5. In view of the directions given by the Supreme Court in BK
Verma ( supra ), it is not permissible to grant any study leave to the
petitioner. The Supreme Court has further held that even if this Court
is dissatisfied with the policy, modification to the same, if any, can
only be made by the Air Force and not by the Court.
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the
prayer of the petitioner for grant of study leave.
7. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the view taken by
the Armed Forces Tribunal in the impugned order declining interim
relief to the petitioner.
8. We find no merit in the petition. Petition is consequently
dismissed.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
petitioner would be approaching the respondents for grant of Earned
Leave.
10. In case any application is made by the petitioner for grant of
any permissible leave, it would be open to the respondent/Air Force to
consider the same in accordance with law. However, they shall do so
with expedition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
Signing Date:28.07.2023
14:52:34
W.P. (C) 9903/2023 Page 4 of 5
11. Order Dasti under signature of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
<,,,,,,,,,
MANOJ JAIN, J
,
JULY 27, 2023/NA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHIM KAPOOR
Signing Date:28.07.2023
14:52:34
W.P. (C) 9903/2023 Page 5 of 5