Sanchayita Lahkar

The Gauhati High Court at Kohima, Division Bench of Justice Unni Krishnan Nair and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer dismissed a writ appeal filed by a former recruit who sought reinstatement into the Assam Rifles after being discharged during training. The Court held that a trainee who has neither successfully completed training nor been formally enrolled as a member of the force under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, cannot claim reinstatement, particularly where the discharge followed a voluntary written application and a notarized affidavit executed by the recruit himself.

A recruit who had qualified in a Staff Selection Commission examination for the post of Constable (GD) in Assam Rifles in 2011 received a provisional appointment order, cleared the medical examination, and was issued an appointment letter for the post of Recruit General Duty. He was directed to report to the Assam Rifles Training Centre, Dimapur in January 2012.

Also Read: Auction Sale Under Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Framework Void Ab Initio On Failure To Deposit Full Purchase Price Within Prescribed Period: Supreme Court

After undergoing training for approximately twelve months and sixteen days, a discharge certificate on request was issued to him, followed by a formal discharge order under Chapter IV, para 27(4) of the Assam Rifles Rules 2010. The appellant repeatedly sought reinstatement, including through a representation submitted by his mother, but was formally rejected in October 2015 on the ground that he had not returned within ninety days of discharge.

The appellant filed a writ petition alleging procedural unfairness, non-compliance with the Assam Rifles Rules 2010, physical torture during training, mala fide exercise of power, and violation of Articles 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, stated that the appellant had voluntarily signed discharge papers and an affidavit executed before a notary public affirming free will, and had not withdrawn his resignation within the prescribed period. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant had not been absorbed as a member of the Assam Rifles force upon completion of training, and accordingly, reinstatement did not arise.

The Division Bench, after considering the submissions and perusing the records, concurred with the findings of the learned Single Judge. The Court stated that "the learned Single Judge has considered the matter in its entirety and has considered the case of the appellant in the backdrop of the provisions of the Assam Rifles Rules, 1985 and the Assam Rifles Act, 2006."

On the appointment letter, the Court recorded that the Single Judge had taken into account "the provisions in clause (3) of the appointment letter dated 13.12.2011 where it is categorically stated that if the appellant failed to successfully complete the recruitment training within the stipulated period his service is liable to be terminated without any notice and assigning any reason."

Regarding the notarized affidavit, the Court observed that the Single Judge had "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."

On the question of membership in the force and reinstatement, the Court stated that the Single Judge had 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."

Also Read: “Fissiparous Tendency”: Gauhati High Court Issues Notice to Assam CM in PILs Alleging Hate Speech

The Court further recorded that it found "no perversity with the conclusions drawn by the Learned Single Judge."

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Airport Authority of India versus Pradip Kumar Banerjee, the Division Bench stated that "in an intra-court appeal, the finding of fact of the learned Single Judge, unless such findings is concluded by the appellant bench to be perverse would not be called to be disturbed." It was further stated that "merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief."

Applying the said precedent, the Court recorded that "the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in WP(C)./144/2020 does not warrant any interference."

The Court directed: "In view of the above discussions we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and consequently, it is dismissed. No order as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: MD. Apzal Ansari, M Solo

For the Respondents: Chinyang Phom, appearing on behalf of Z.N. Ngullie, Central Government Senior Counsel

Case Title: Sachin Kumar Thakur v. Office of the Commandant Assam Rifle Training Centre and School and 5 Ors

Neutral Citation: GAHC020004162025

Case Number: WA/14/2025

Bench: Justice Unni Krishnan Nair, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer