The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court for redressal of grievances at the earliest or within a reasonable span of time, and the refusal to condone inordinate delay in seeking legal remedy.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking a mandamus that the order dated 28.11.2017, be quashed and respondents be directed to re-fix his seniority at par with the 36th Batch DAGO, CRPF in terms of his merit position in the final selection list of SSB (CPO-2002) Examination or in the alternative, he be placed on the top of the 37th Batch DAGO, CRPF (CPO-2003) Examination.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the SSB in the year 2002, for conducting SSB (CPO-2002) examination for appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Police Forces, the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process and qualified in the written examination as well the interview. On 16.08.2004, the petitioner was declared temporarily medically unfit and was not sent for training with the 36th Batch as his name was not included in the final selection list of SSB (CPO-2002) Examination.

3. The petitioner again participated in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Commandant in Central Police Forces through SSB (CPO-2003) Examination and successfully qualified not only the written test and interview, but was also declared medically fit. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Commandant on an offer of appointment dated 05.09.2005, being accepted by him. He successfully completed his training as well probation period with the 37th Batch, DAGO.

4. The petitioner sent a representation to the respondents for re-fixation of his seniority on 11.10.2010, which was rejected on 23.09.2011 and the communication reads as under:-

“1. Your application dated 11.10.2010, on the subject matter received in this office vide DIG, CRPF, Silchar Range letter No. G.II.2/2010-CC dated 18.11.2010 was forwarded to the Pers(Dte) for needful vide this Hqr letter of even number dated 27.12.2010. Having examined your case in detail, the DIG (Pers), Dte. Vide letter No.O.II.6575/2011-Pers-A/C dated 25.08.2011 has conveyed that your claim/contention of being a 36th Batch DAGO is in-correct. As per the records available in the Dte. Genl., you had appeared in SSB (CPOs-2002) and was declared successful in written examination and interview. However, appointment of successful candidates in CPFs was subject to their being declared medically fit by the Medical Board of SSB, constituted for the purpose. But, you were declared temporarily unfit in the medical examination. Only those candidates who were declared medically fit were allocated to CPOs and your candidature did not figure in the list. Further, you had again appeared in the CPOs A/C examination 2003 and was declared qualified in all respects and was allocated to CRPF for appointment as Asstt. Commandant vide BSF letter dated 16.02.05. Accordingly, you were appointed as A/C w.e.f. 8.10.05 and had undergone training as 37th Batch DAGO.

2. Since, you were appointed in the 37th Batch DAGOs and had undergone training with them, the seniority assigned to you is very much in order and your case does not merit re-fixation of seniority from a date when you were not even in service. Though, you were fully aware of all the facts, you preferred the representation by submitting misleading facts that you belong to 36th Batch DAGO to gain undue benefits from the Department. This act of yours for vested interest not only wasted the valuable time of higher offices but also resulted in unwarranted correspondence.

3. Hence, you are hereby ‘ADVICED’ to refrain from making such baseless representation in future with an intention of misleading the department for vested interests, failing which you may have to be dealt with more sternly.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been making various representations to the respondents and his last such representation was rejected on 28.11.2017. On rejection of his representation in November, 2017, the petitioner has approached the Court without any delay

6.