Unsuccessful In All Attempts: Rajasthan HC Rejects Candidate's Challenge To Policy On Officers' Selection To Commission In Army Dental Corps

" In the present case, the appellant has clearly failed to establish in any manner whatsoever, that the impugned action of the respondents amounted to changing the 'Rules of Game' during continuation of the process in question, nor was he able to show that the impugned Policy or action of the respondents have caused unwarranted prejudice to the lawful rights & interests of the candidates like the present appellant, qua the grant of Permanent Commission in the AD Corps. Thus, merely on count of the fact that at the behest of the appellant, without there being any strong legal ground, it has been urged that a different Policy would have been fair, transparent, rational & logical, this Court does not feel inclined to strike down the Policy of 1996, qua the process in question, in the given circumstances, and also looking into the fact, which is writ large on the face of the record, that it would not be appropriate for this Court, to embark upon an enquiry that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available, instead of the impugned Policy of 1996," the court said. The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a candidate's petition challenging a 1996 Policy on procedure for selection of officers for appointment to permanent commission in Army Dental Corps, after noting that that he had not only participated in the process but had remained unsuccessful three times. For context, Union Ministry of Defence issued a communication to the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services, endorsing a copy thereof to the Director General of Medical Services, Director General of Medical Services & Director General of Medical Services, which was a Policy on 'Procedure to be followed by the AD Corps Selection Board For Selection of Officers for Appointment to Commission in the Army Dental Corps' to be followed, in particularly, for selection of SSCO for Permanent Commission in the Army Dental Corps. Following this, appellant raised a claim with the State seeking his candidature be considered under another 2012 Policy instead of the 1996 Policy on the ground that the 1996 Policy did not take into account the performance of officer, special achievements, honours, awards etc, and rather prescribes a single clear test for granting Permanent Commission to an SSCO.