Golf enthusiast retired JCO alleges discrimination by AEPTA

A retired junior commissioned officer (JCO), who served 24 years in the Army, has alleged discrimination after he was not allowed the membership at the Army Environmental Park and Training Area (AEPTA), Army Golf Course.

Prem Goswami, a golf enthusiast, has alleged through his plea filed in the Delhi High Court that he was not given a membership by the AEPTA despite appearing for the aptitude test five times because they are following a policy of not including the JCOs as its members.

Goswami retired as a class II Gazetted Officer of the Army 18 years ago and has been struggling to get AEPTA membership. He is presently working as a general manager and head HR at a multinational company in Noida.

According to the plea filed through his counsels Setu Niket and Esha Majumdar, in 2009, Goswami being a golf lover and an ex-service personnel, enquired telephonically from the AEPTA, about the green fee that would be charged from him in case he would want to use the Golf Course on the lines of an earlier letter of the Army Headquarters that Defence Services Personnel, including ex-servicemen (Army, Navy and Air Force) would be entitled to play on the Army Golf Courses.

However, he was informed that PBORs (Personnel Below Officer Ranks) are not entitled to use the Golf Course. Following this, he made a representation to the then Golf Course captain. He was allowed to play by paying a green fee of Rs 150.

Goswami travelled from Ghaziabad (his earlier residence) to Dhaula Kuan to play golf and simultaneously requested for a membership of the AEPTA as it would also entitle him to play at other golf courses on a reciprocity basis, without charges/with minimum charges, including Noida Golf Course.

However, this was denied and he again made a representation to the General Officer Commanding. But again, he received a letter on July 25, 2011, which stated that his case shall be placed before the Apex Body, during its next AGM in 2012.

Goswami again made a representation and received a call for an aptitude test. The first test was conducted in 2011. After that, he had taken five exams but was told that he did not clear the exam.

While speaking to DNA, Goswami alleged that at the sixth instance, he was congratulated over the phone and stated that I had cleared the exam. He asked him to deposit the money and fulfill the documental formalities.

"I submitted all my documents. However, after a few days when I enquired about my membership card, I was told that I will have to appear in the exam again," an angry Goswami said.

However, the AEPTA submitted that it had stopped providing permanent membership since 1994 and only gives a temporary one. It also contended that Goswami had failed his aptitude test which is mandatory.

The counsel sought time from the court to take instructions as to whether Goswami could be permitted to take the aptitude test once again. Allowing this request, Justice Vibhu Bhakru, permitted the time sought and listed the matter for January 30.

The plea had also contended that the subject of the letter quoted 'Membership of PBORs' amounts to bias and in itself is discriminatory.