Air Force Wrestler Can’t Join Coaching Course Ending After His Discharge, Delhi HC Upholds Refusal to Spare Him for It

In brief

The question

1. Whether refusing the petitioner permission to join the course because it would end after his discharge was arbitrary or inconsistent with the governing policy.

The court held

The Court held that the refusal was not arbitrary and that the petitioner had established no violation of Article 14.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition and pending application, but directed the respondents to refund the course fee and hostel fee within four weeks.

01Facts

The petitioner, an Indian Air Force aircraftsman enrolled under the wrestling sports quota, was selected for the 64th Diploma Course in Sports Coaching at NSNIS, Patiala, after completing the selection process and paying the course and hostel fees.

p. 2

The respondents later refused to spare him for the course because it would conclude in June–July 2027, after his discharge from service in March 2027.

pp. 2–3

He challenged that decision under Article 226, arguing that he had been permitted to undertake the selection process and that other personnel nearing discharge had previously been allowed to attend similar courses.

p. 3

The respondents relied on their policy letter dated 9 December 2020, which aimed to train coaches who could subsequently serve at Air Force units and stations.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether refusing the petitioner permission to join the course because it would end after his discharge was arbitrary or inconsistent with the governing policy.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether allowing other personnel nearing discharge to attend similar courses, while refusing the petitioner, amounted to discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 empowers the High Court to review the legality of administrative decisions, including whether they are arbitrary.

Article 14 prohibits discriminatory state action, but the doctrine of “no negative equality” means that a person cannot claim equal treatment on the basis that others were allegedly granted benefits contrary to the applicable policy.

pp. 3–5

The Court applied the respondents’ policy letter dated 9 December 2020, whose stated objective was to train personnel who could provide coaching at Air Force units and stations after completing the NSNIS course.

pp. 3–5

No statute or judicial precedent was cited.

04Reasoning

The Court found a rational connection between the policy’s purpose and the refusal: because the petitioner would be discharged before the course ended, he could not thereafter provide coaching within the Air Force, defeating the policy’s stated objective.

p. 4

The petitioner had not challenged the policy, and the Court considered its objective reasonable.

p. 4

As to the alleged comparator cases, the discrimination argument had not been pleaded; in any event, the respondents acknowledged past departures from the policy and said measures had been introduced to prevent their recurrence.

pp. 4–5

Any prior departures did not entitle the petitioner to the same treatment, given the rule against negative equality.

pp. 4–5