Chandigarh, April 18
Counsel for the Union of India has reportedly submitted before the Delhi High Court that there were discrepancies in the counter-affidavit filed by the Judge Advocate-General (JAG), Maj Gen Nilendra Kumar, vis-à-vis the counter-affidavit filed by the government.

Both affidavits, filed on directions of the court, concern the details of the general’s service record and his whereabouts when he was supposed to be pursuing a three-year law course while ostensibly posted at Lucknow.

A petition filed by an Army jawan, Netrapal Singh, had alleged that the law degree of the JAG, who heads the Army’s legal department, was invalid because he was posted at a different place when he was supposed to be undergoing the course at Lucknow and hence could not 
have fulfilled the mandatory requirement of attending lectures. The case came up for hearing yesterday.

According to the government’s affidavit, a copy of which is available with The Tribune, the JAG had not sought prior permission from the government, required under regulations, to pursue the law course. Nor had he taken any study leave for pursuing the course.

Referring to the government’s affidavit and other documents, counsel for the petitioner, Mr Israel Ali, said that the general had taken admission in the third year on May 25, 1982, and obtained the admit card for the examination on August 24. Three months, he said, were inadequate to complete the required 66 per cent attendance.

Besides, an affidavit filed by the Bar Council of India, which is among the respondents in the case, states that as per regulations and court judgements, attending 66 per cent lectures is essential for obtaining a law degree.

The Court also summoned the entire records and relevant documents pertaining to the law course undertaken by the general from the university and college concerned at Lucknow. The court has also directed that a senior functionary from both institutions be present in court at the next date of hearing.

Meanwhile, Maj K Ramesh (retd), counsel for an officer who has moved the court over his non-transfer to the JAG department, requested the Bench to de-link his case from that of the JAG on the grounds the contentions in both cases were different. The court, however, observed that both cases pertain to obtaining of law degree while in service and overruled the request. Both cases have been listed for hearing on May 9.