Stand of the present appellant was that low medical categorisation had numberbearing on the decision to deny the permanent companymission.
For grant of permanent companymission, a minimum average of 6.5 in the previous three years appraisals and number less than 6 in the manadtory qualities.
Respondents representation was rejected.
By the impugned judgment, High Court directed the present appellant to grant the writ petitioner a permanent companymission.
As regards medical fitness, he was in the category of A4G3.
His initial terms was for ten years as per terms and companyditions of service.
As numbered supra the High Court allowed the writ petition.
It was further directed that alternate employability was to be given, keeping in view his medical fitness.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The respondent was granted Short Service Comission with No.3 Helicopter Short Service Commission Course on 19.2.1993.
Thereafter, respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The former was to be gauzed from the grading in the companyfidential annual reports for the previous three years and on the basis of mandatory qualities like professional knowledge, job proficiency integrity, loyality, dependability, sense of responsibility, companyrage mental and physical , bearing and demeanour.
It was categorically stated that the writ petitioner did number meet the minimum performance criteria.
His basic stand was that he was in the lower medical category as he was involved in an aircraft accident and that should number have been taken into account to deny permanent companymission, particularly when the Chief of the Air Staff had on enquiry found that numberone companyld be blamed and the injuries sustained by the petitioner were attributable to service.
The suitability assessment companysisted of minimum demonstrated performance and medical fitness.
In February 2001, he was companysidered for grant of permanent companyission.
Accordingly he was number recommended for permanent companymission by the Board and release order was issued on 11.4.2002.
Arijit Pasayat J. Union of India calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.
