In the recent civil appeal heard by the Supreme Court of India under the Civil Appeal No. 644-655 of 2017, the case of ex-recruit Babanna Machchad against the Union of India and others, the Supreme Court deemed the discharge/dismissal from service of persons enrolled under the Indian Army as “bad in law” without the consideration of their explanation.
The dispute revolved around the recruitment category of the appellants within the Unit Headquarters Quota (UHQ) system, where the court underscored the UHQ guidelines that priority was given to certain categories of personnel, inclusive of sons, grandsons of servicemen and ex-servicemen, brothers and other near relatives of those killed in service, wards who were fully dependent upon servicemen or ex-servicemen, sportsmen of merit and such other persons for whom there was a special recruitment.
The appellants were enrolled and recruited by the Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre under the UHQ and served for 3 years until they were issued a show case notice alleging that they had obtained enrollment in the Army through fake sports person certificates or false relationship certificates.
The Court observed that the appellants had enrolled under the general category with no documents of such sort attached to them, and they allowed the appeal at hand, further declaring the discharge or dismissal from service as “bad in law” for non-consideration of their explanation. The Court by its means set precedent and established the importance of following clear guidelines and instructions in recruitment processes to ensure the fair treatment of candidates.
BABANNA MACHCHED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 644-645 OF 2017) (2024 INSC 95)
NAME: Sreenishanka Vadiraj, 6th sem, BBA-LLB(Hons.)PES University, Bangalore, Intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.