JUDGMENT
J.N. Bhatt, J.
1. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to a very narrow circumference in which the challenge is against the order dated 11/12/1995, passed by the Respondent-authority.
2. With a view to appreciating, the sole contention advanced in this petition, to substantiate the claim in the petition, let it first be highlighted that as per the Rules of Railway Protection Force, 1987, the selection/ promotion for the post of Assistant Sub Inspectors are conducted in accordance with Rules, 70 and 72 of Railway Protection Force Rule, 1987 (Rules) and Schedule IV, wherein, the conditions for strict compliance have been laid down. As per the Rule, the petitioner in the present case was entitled to offer himself for the post of promotion and training, by two chances and that from the record of the service, it is amply borne out that he had already exhausted and availed the permissible two chances in the past.
The first chance that the petitioner availed on 7/12/1990, while he was working at BCT division, which is confirmed from the letter, dated 28/11/1995, whereas, second chance he availed, on 24/7/1994 for which he submitted his willingness while working under Crime Wing and from there he arrived on transfer, at Ahmedabad on 5/7/1994.
3. Again the petitioner submitted his willingness from Ahmedabad to appear in the selection to be held on 27/8/95 as per Rule 72 but the same time he had not disclosed correct facts to the effect that he had already availed two chances permissible under the Rules. It is in this context, he was promoted to attend the training school at Valsad on third occasion. The promotion for training, at Valsad, was passed on his misrepresentation and suppression of the material fact.
4. It is amply clear from the record, that on administrative scrutiny and screening by the concerned officers, it was manifestly borneout that the petitioner was disqualified for the same on the ground that he had already availed of two chances. Petitioner, obviously, therefore, was terminated from his pre-promotion course or training and same was communicated to the petitioner, which is under challenge in this petition.
5. After having read the entire conspectus of the factual profile of relevant Rule stated hereinabove and the submissions raised by learned advocate for the petitioner, in absence of learned Advocate for the respondent, this Court has no hesitation in finding that this petition is meritless for the simple reason that there is no entitlement and the termination from training is based upon the fact that the true facts were highlighted by the officer concerned on administrative scrutiny and it was found that the petitioner himself is guilty of not only misrepresentation but suppression of material facts, therefore, petition deserves only and only one legal fate of rejection. Accordingly, it shall stand rejected. Rule discharged.
