Since Trainee Was Not Absorbed In Assam Rifles, Issue Of Reinstatement In Service Doesn't Arise: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court was considering an appeal of an Assam Rifles trainee.
While dismissing the appeal of an Assam Rifles trainee, the Gauhati High Court has affirmed the view that the issue of reinstatement in service would not arise when he was not absorbed in the Assam Rifles on successful completion of training, and he was not a member of the Assam Rifles Force.
The High Court was considering an intra-court appeal filed against the judgment of a Single Judge.
The Division Bench of Justice Unni Krishnan Nair and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer held, “After considering the case of the appellant in the light of the Assam Rifles Rules 1985 and the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, the learned Single Judge arrived at the finding that the appellant was not absorbed in the Assam Rifles on successful completion of training and that the appellant was not a member of the Assam Rifles Force and therefore, the issue of reinstatement in service would not arise.”
“Applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India (supra) to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in WP(C)./144/2020 does not warrant any interference”, it added.
Advocate Md Apzal Ansari represented the Appellant.
Factual Background
The appellant/petitioner appeared for a recruitment exam conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for the post of constable (GD) in Assam Rifles in the year 2011. The appellant/petitioner qualified in the said exam, and he received a provisional appointment order. After completing the final stage of the selection process, the appellant was issued another communication inviting him to a medical examination. After being successful in the medical examination, an appointment letter was issued to the petitioner for appointment as a Recruit General Duty (GD).
By a communication, the petitioner was directed to report at the Assam Rifles Training Centre along with all relevant documents. After undergoing training for over 12 months, a discharge certificate on request was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commandant and C.I Assam Rifles Training Centre, Dimapur. A notice was given to the petitioner of being discharged from service on March 31, 2012, at his own request. The appellant repeatedly requested reinstatement but to no avail. Despite his multiple representations, no favourable response was received. The appellant received a rejection letter stating that he would not be reinstated as he failed to return within 90 days of dismissal. The appellant stated that he had returned within the stipulated period, but he was refused entry and turned away. The petitioner was issued a communication formally rejecting his claim for reinstatement. The appellant’s writ petition came to be dismissed.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the order of the Single Judge, the Bench noted that the Judge had considered the case of the appellant in the backdrop of the provisions of the Assam Rifles Rules, 1985 and the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. The Single Judge had also taken into account the provisions in clause (3) of the appointment letter, where it was categorically stated that if the appellant failed to complete the recruitment training within the stipulated period, his service was liable to be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reason.
“The learned Single Judge has also taken into account the contentions of the appellant regarding the notarized affidavit and has arrived at a reasoned finding that the appellant had knowledge of the contents of the affidavit which he had signed on 16.02.2012”, it added.
The Bench affirmed the view of the Single Judge that the appellant was not absorbed in the Assam Rifles on successful completion of training, and he was not a member of the Assam Rifles Force and therefore, the issue of reinstatement in service would not arise.
Reference was made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Airport Authority of India Versus Pradip Kumar Banerjee (2025) wherein it has been observed that in an intra-court appeal, the finding of fact of the Single Judge, unless such findings are concluded by the appellant bench to be perverse, would not be called to be disturbed.
Finding no perversity with the conclusions drawn by the Single Judge, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sachin Kumar Thakur v. Office of the Commandant, Assam Rifle Taning Centre (Neutral Citation:2026:GAU-NL:43-DB)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Md Apzal Ansari, M Solo