Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3689
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pradeep Nandrajog, Pratibha Rani, JJ.
Satvir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 1315/2015 & W.P.(C) 1320/2015
Decided On : 12-02-2015
For the Respondents:Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between promotion and direct recruitment, and the applicability of medical norms for fitness assessment based on the mode of appointment.
Headnote:
Appointment by Selection - Promotion - Central Industrial Security Force (Subordinate Ranks) Recruitment Rules, 1999 - 2, 4 - The court discussed the applicability of medical norms for promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and the distinction between promotion and direct recruitment. The court emphasized the guidelines for eye sight and medical standards for direct recruits and promotees, and the requirement for fresh medical examination prior to appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the question of whether appointment by selection through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) is promotion or direct recruitment, and the applicability of medical norms for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that appointment through LDCE is a mode of promotion, and the applicable medical norms for fitness assessment should be those for promotee officers, not direct recruits. The court directed the respondents to constitute a Board for the fresh medical examination of the petitioners and issue letters of appointment if found medically fit.
Issues: The main issue was the classification of appointment through LDCE as promotion or direct recruitment, and the applicability of medical norms for fitness assessment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that LDCE is a mode of promotion based on the stand of the respondents and emphasized the distinction in medical standards for direct recruits and promotees. The court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination for the petitioners and issue appointment letters accordingly.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and issued a mandamus for the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination for the petitioners and issue appointment letters if found medically fit.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral):--
1. The question whether appointment by selection pursuant to a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination is promotion or direct recruitment has been decided by a decision in W.P.(C) No. 2887/2012 Man Singh v. UOI & Ors. holding that it is a case of promotion, on the reasoning in paras 17, 18 and 19 as under:-
“17. In support of her first contention, Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the stand of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Personnel), New Delhi as well as the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India in their records which have been filed in a pending matter before the Supreme Court of India. The first noting (dated 18th November, 2011) is extracted in extenso hereafter and reads as follows:-
“Department of Personnel & Training Estt (res) Reference notes of Ministry of Home Affairs on pages 2-3/ante.
2. Regarding clarification whether LDCE is Direct Recruitment or a mode of promotion, the RR Branch of this Department has clarified that the LDCE is a mode of promotion. On the issue of change in category of a person, who has been appointed on the basis of reservation, it is clarified vide this Department’s OM dated 11.7.2002 that SC/ST candidates appointed on their own merit (by direct recruitment or promotion) and adjusted against unreserved points will retain their status of SC/ST and will be eligible to get benefit of reservation in future/further promotions, if any.
-sd-
(Sharad Kumar Srivastava)
Under Secretary (Res)”
(underlining by us)
18. This noting was reiterated by the Ministry of Home Affairs in a noting dated 22nd November, 2011 of Shri R.P. Sati, Under Secretary referring to a writ petition filed in this court. The noting dated 22nd November, 2011 reads as follows:-
“Ministry of Home Affairs
Pers – II
Reference note on pre-pages.
2. This is regarding Writ Petition(C) No. 5460/2011 filed by Shri Sundeep Kumar Dubey, Constable (GD) of CRPF in the High Court of Delhi against his non-selection for the post of Sub, Insp(GD) through Limited Department Competitive Examination (LDCE), 2010.
3. The matter was considered in this Ministry (p-2/n) and DoP&T was requested to clarify the position as mentioned in para – 3(p-2/n). In this connection DoP&T vide their UO dated 18.11.2011 (p-4/n) has clarified the following:-
“Regarding clarification whether LDCE is Direct Recruitment or a mode of promotion, the RR Branch of this Department has clarified that the LDCE is a mode of promotion. On the issue of change in category of a person, who has been appointed on the basis of reservation, it is clarified vide this Department’s OM dated 11.7.2002 that SC/ST candidates appointed on their own merit (by direct recruitment or promotion) and adjusted against unreserved points will retain their status of SC/ST and will be eligible to get benefit of reservation in future/further promotions, if any.”
4. We may convey the above mentioned clarification of DoP&T to CRPF.
Sd-
(R.P. Sati)
Under Secretary
22.11.2011
Director (Pers)/DS(Pers-I)”
(Underlining supplied)
The correctness and authenticity of these notings have not been disputed before us by the respondents.
19. The respondents have urged in the present proceedings that appointments through the LDCE is a mode of fast tracked promotion. In the above notings, the respondents have themselves taken the position that appointment through the LDCE is a mode of promotion. Given the stand of the respondents in the notings aforesaid and before this Court it is clear that appointment to LDCE is merely an appointment by promotion, albeit fast tracked. It would, therefore, follow that the recruitment rules or guidelines for appointments which would apply to appointments through the LDCE, would have to be those which are applicable to appointment by promotions.” (emphasis supplied)
2. Thus, as held by this Co
