IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. Muralidhar, I.S. Mehta, JJ.
Kalawati Thakur And Others - Appellants
Vs.
Union Of India And Another - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6094 of 2018, 9345 of 2018
Decided On : 11-03-2019
Promotion - Central Reserve Police Force - CRPF Rules, 1955 - Female Sub-Inspectors - WP(C) No. 6094/2018, WP(C) No. 9345/2018 - Rule 5 A (d) of CRPF Rules - Judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Inspector GD (Mahila) Bilju A.T - Combined seniority list - Discrimination in promotions - Notional dates of promotion - No back wages or arrears of pay
Fact of the Case:
The petitions concern female Sub-Inspectors in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) seeking promotions and benefits equivalent to their male counterparts. The female Sub-Inspectors were denied promotions and benefits despite a combined seniority list being maintained for male and female Sub-Inspectors.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Respondents' denial of promotions and benefits to the female Sub-Inspectors based on the purported absence of vacancies in the female cadre amounted to discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court set aside the orders rejecting the representations of the Petitioners and directed the Respondents to fix notional dates of promotion for the Petitioners and the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 9345/2018, from the dates their immediate junior male counterparts in the combined seniority list were promoted. The Court also directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 9345/2018 for promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant (DC) from the same date as her immediate junior male counterpart in the combined seniority list of Assistant Commandants (ACs) was promoted.
Issues: The central issue was whether the female Sub-Inspectors were entitled to promotions and benefits equivalent to their male counterparts, and whether the Respondents' denial of promotions based on the absence of vacancies in the female cadre amounted to discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Respondents' denial of promotions and benefits to the female Sub-Inspectors based on the purported absence of vacancies in the female cadre amounted to discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court directed the Respondents to fix notional dates of promotion for the Petitioners and the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 9345/2018, from the dates their immediate junior male counterparts in the combined seniority list were promoted, and to consider the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 9345/2018 for promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant (DC) from the same date as her immediate junior male counterpart in the combined seniority list of Assistant Commandants (ACs) was promoted.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the orders rejecting the representations of the Petitioners and directed the Respondents to fix notional dates of promotion for the Petitioners and the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 9345/2018, from the dates their immediate junior male counterparts in the combined seniority list were promoted. The Court also directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 9345/2018 for promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant (DC) from the same date as her immediate junior male counterpart in the combined seniority list of Assistant Commandants (ACs) was promoted.
S. Muralidhar, J.
These two petitions arise out of a common set of facts and seek similar relief. They are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The central issue in both petitions is whether the Petitioners who joined the Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF") as female Sub-Inspectors (SIs)/General Duty (GD) are entitled to the same benefit granted to their counterparts and in accordance with the decision dated 24th May, 2013 of this Court in WP(C) No. 8744/2011 (Bilju A.T. v. Union of India) as further modified by the judgment dated 16th October, 2014 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 9840-41/2014 (Union of India v. Inspector GD (Mahila) Bilju A.T)
Facts in W P (C) 6094 of 2018
3. Wp (C) No. 6094 of 2018 has been filed by 21 Petitioners, all female. Each of them applied for the post of SI/GD in the Central Police Organisations (CPOs) and participated in the selection process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in the year 2002. Each of them qualified in the written examination, the Physical Efficiency Test as well as the Medical Examination. They were finally selected in the result declared in December, 2002. Each of the Petitioners was offered appointment as SI/GD by letter dated 27th August, 2003 directing them to report for training by 2nd January, 2004.
4. The advertisement pursuant to which they applied was for a common examination with common selection and did not differentiate between the male and female candidates. It also did not specify that the seniority of female and male candidates would be maintained separately. On completion of their training, the Petitioners as well as their male counter parts were posted to various Battalions. The grievance of the Petitioners in W.P. (C) 6094 of 2018 is that notwithstanding the Respondents maintaining a combined seniority list of female and male SIs in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Inspector GD (Mahila) Bilju A.T (supra), their further promotions as Inspector and then Assistant Commandants (ACs) is much later than their male counterparts who qualified as SIs along with them in the same exam.
5. The representations made by these Petitioners seeking the same benefit as granted to the female SIs by the decision of this Court in WP (C) No. 8744/2011 (Bilju A.T. v. Union of India) as further modified by the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 9840-41/2014 (Union of India v. Inspector GD (Mahila) Bilju A.T) was rejected by the Respondents by orders dated 10th March and 10th April 2018. The Petitioners in W.P. (C) 6094 of 2018 have accordingly prayed for directions to the Respondents to grant them the above benefit and further to promote them as Inspectors and ACs "from the date their immediate juniors have been granted promotions as shown in the revised seniority list of SIs.
Facts in W.P. (C) 9345 of 2018
6. As far as WP(C) No. 9345 of 2018 is concerned, it has been filed by Nayan Nandi (NN) who was appointed as Constable (GD) in the CRPF on 27th August, 1998 under the Sports Quota as she was a national level swimmer. On appointment, NN was posted to 103 Battalion (RAF) and attached to the Swimming Team which was based there.
7. Nn states that due to her outstanding performance in sports, she was given an out-of-turn promotion as SI in September, 1998. In March, 2007 NN was posted, on paper, to the 135th Battalion. However, she continued with the swimming team.
8. On 5th February, 2007 NN was sent for the pre-promotional course i.e. Senior Sub-Inspector Cadre Course (SSICC), for promotion to the rank of Inspector. On 6th July, 2007, on successful completion of the SSICC, NN's name was shown in the select list for promotion to the post of Inspector. However, as NN had not completed two years' service in a duty Battalion in the rank of SI and her attachment to the swimmin
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.