UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus FLIGHT CADET ASHISH RAI

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 18-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
-f 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
FLIGHT CADET ASHISH RAI 
JANUARY 18. 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA VAT AND TA RUN CHATTRJEE, JJ.] 
B 
SER VICE LA W: 
Training of cadet-Termination of. due to medical unfitness-Further 
two opportunities for training in different courses-Failure in academics- C 
Suspension of training-Resumption of training by interim order of High 
Court-Cadet involved in criminal cases and acts of misconduct-Termination 
of training due to failure in academics and. indiscipline-Order of suspension 
and termination quashed by High Court in Writ Petitions as well as Writ 
Appeals-On appeal, held: Termination of training justified in view of his D 
failure in final examination and his various acts of misconduct-Air Force 
Order No. 79 of 1973. 
Judicial Review-Of administrative matters-Scope of-Held: 
Administrative actions subject to control of judicial review on(v in case of 
illegality, irrationality and procedural improprie(v-Not permissible when E 
irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration, no relevant aspect 
is ignored and administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record. 
r 
~ 
Respondent was selected as a flight cadet, but the training wa~ 
terminated in the mid due to his medical unfitness. A further opportunity 
of training in Navigators course was also terminated since he was lagging p 
behind in studies. Still another opportunity was given to him for training 
in Ground Duty Officer's course. As he failed in various academic subjects, 
a Training Review Board was formed and its opinion was forwarded to 
the Headquarters for processing with Central Government. Respondent 
was suspended. He filed Writ Petition, wherein, by an interim order he 
was allowed to continue training. During training, prior to suspension as G 
well as after his having resumed the training, he was found involved in 
various acts of misconduct and was also involved in criminal cases. His 
training was terminated, because of his failure in academics and for 
maintaining low standard of discipline. He filed another Writ Petition 
457 
H 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20061 I S.C.R. 
A challenging order of termination. High Court allowed both the Writ 
Petitions quashing the orders of suspension as well as termination. Writ 
Appeals of the appellant were dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I There should be judicial restraint while making judicial 
B review in administrative matters. Where irrelevant aspects have been 
eschewed from consideration and no relevant aspect has been ignored and 
the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, there is 
no scope for interference. The duty of the court is (a) to confine itself to 
the question of legality; (b) to decide whether the decision making 
C authority exceeded its powers (c) committed an error of law (d) committed 
breach of the rules of natural justice and (e) reached a decision which no 
reasonable Tribunal would have reached or (f) abused its powers. 
[461-E-F'[ 
1.2. Administrative action is subject to control by judicial review in 
' 
D the following manner: (i) Illegality: This means the decision making power 
, 
and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury 
unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. [461-F-H[ 
2.1. In the instant case the High Court seems to have ignored the 
relevant aspects and emphasized on irrelevant issues. There were Review 
E Boards on three occasions at Air Force academy where the relevant factors 
regarding the academic performance of the respondent as well as the 
disciplinary cases were considered and termination of training was 
recommended. The training termination proceedings were forwarded to 
the Air Headquarters as well as the Government of India which duly 
F approved the same. That itself shows that there was no mala-fides involved. 
[462-A-B[ 
2.2. It is evident from Air F'orce Order No. 79of1973 that training 
of failed cadets can be terminated. The question of allotment of grace 
marks is also governed by the instructions and clearly the respondent was 
G not entitled to grace marks. The warning letters issued to the respondent 
show that he had failed to secure the requisite pass percentage and he was 
ad\'ised guidance and additional coaching. In the final examinations he 
had failed in two various subjects. In the confidential recommendation of 
the latter Training Review Board various acts of misconduct were no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.