Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, ASHA MENON, JJ.
Rajiv Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 6951, 6955, 6957, 6959, 9816, 10248 of 2019, 2165, 2192, 2193, 2928, 2930, 2932, 2987, 3034, 3713, 8006 of 2020, C.M. Nos. 10173, 10177, 10181, 10355, 10559, 13300, 26067, 28903, 28906, 28913, 28919, 40489, 42264 of 2019 (for stay)
Decided On : 04-08-2021
Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 - Rule 6(3). Rule 6(4), 6(5) and 6A - Notification/Advertisement - CAPF Examination - Graduation Certificate of Indian Army/Navy/Air Force/Armed Forces Medical Services - Bachelor’s Degree from a Recognised University or Equivalent - Department of Personnel and Training - Lower Standard for Selection - Whether respondent SSC had done any exercise to judge equivalence of the Deemed Graduation Certificate of Army/Navy/Air Force with Bachelor’s Degree from a Recognised University - Petitions were filed, impugning action of respondent SSC of, after petitioners were so appointed and joined service and served for considerable time, revising result of CAPF Examination- 2014/2016 to prejudice of petitioners and respondents BSF and CISF, of, as a consequence of revision of result, issuing notices to petitioners appointed as SIs in BSF, to show cause why their services should not be terminated/terminating their service and/or to petitioners appointed as SIs in CISF, to show cause why they should not be demoted/demoting them to the post of ASI in CISF.
Finding of the Court:
No such exercise had been done and that respondent SSC does not have an equivalence list. Court view, once the employment Notification/Advertisement provides for “Equivalent” the conduct of an exercise to determine equivalence is essential - Rules themselves permit of relaxation in certain eventualities though the eventuality as has arisen is not eventuality in which the Rules permit relaxation but is comparable thereto, particularly when the posts so occupied by the petitioners cannot today be given to any other ex-servicemen - Proceedings initiated/orders passed for removal of petitioners and/or for demotion of petitioners are quashed/set aside and petitioners held entitled to continue on the posts to which they were appointed, including to all benefits including further promotions etc. thereof - Respondents to, within six months of today, have a re-look at Rules, 1979 including by conducting equivalence studies and by examining differences in nature of duties to be performed by incumbents of Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts in CAPFs and take a decision whether Deemed Graduation Certificate issued by Army/Navy/Air Force is required to be holder thereof eligible for Group ‘B’ and other posts also, where the essential educational qualification prescribed is a Bachelor’s Degree from a Recognised University.
Result: Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner in each of these sixteen petitions is an “ex-serviceman” with a “Deemed Graduation Certificate” issued by Indian Army/India Air Force/Indian Navy/Armed Forces Medical Services and had participated in the examination conducted by the respondent Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in the year 2014 or in the year 2016, in the Ex-servicemen Category, for “Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (SIs) in Delhi Police (DP), Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)” (hereinafter referred to as CAPF Examination 2014/2016). On success in the said examination, while the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 3034/2020, W.P. (C) No. 3713/2020 and W.P. (C) No. 8006/2020 were appointed as SIs in Border Security Force (BSF), the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 6951/2019, 6955/2019, 6957/2019, 6959/2019, 9816/2019, 10248/2019, 2165/2020, 2192/2020, 2928/2020, 2930/2020, 2932/2020, 2987/2020 and 2193/2020, were appointed as SIs in CISF.
2. These petitions were filed, impugning the action of (a) the respondent SSC of, after the petitioners were so appointed and joined service and served for considerable time, revising the result of the CAPF Examination-2014/2016 to the prejudice of the petitioners and (b) the respondents BSF and CISF, of as a consequence of the revision of the result, issuing notices to the petitioners appointed as SIs in BSF, to show cause why their services should not be terminated/terminating their service and/or to the petitioners appointed as SIs in CISF, to show cause why they should not be demoted/demoting them to the post of ASI in CISF.
3. The genesis of the actions of respondents SSC/BSF/CISF impugned in these petitions was, that the posts to which the petitioners had been appointed, were Group ‘B’ posts, the essential educational qualification for appointment whereto was “Bachelor’s Degree from a Recognised University or Equivalent” and the petitioners, holding a Deemed Graduation Certificate of the Indian Army/Navy/Air Force/Armed Forces Medical Services, were not eligible therefor and had been inadvertently appointed. The petitioners appointed as SIs in BSF having been found to have secured lesser marks than the last candidate selected in the examination for the post of ASI in CISF, were terminated/sought to be terminated. The petitioners appointed as SIs in CISF having been found to have secured more marks than the last candidate selected in the examination for the post of ASI in CISF, were demoted/sought to be demoted to the post of ASI in CISF. Needless to state, the post of ASI in CISF, is a Group ‘C’ post.
4. Though the petitions came up before this Court at different times, but the issue for adjudication therein being the same, were collated for adjudication.
5. Though the counsels have argued the entire batch of petitions as one, but it is apposite to list out the relevant factual controversy in each of the petitions.
W.P. (C) No. 3034/2020, W.P. (C) No. 3713/2020 and W.P. (C) No. 8006/2020 (of BSF Personnel)
6. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3034/2020 appeared in the CAPF Examination-2014 and on 7th September, 2015 was issued the recruitment letter and has been in service since 15th October, 2016. Vide letter dated 6th November, 2019, the respondent SSC, pursuant to revision of the result of the CAPF Examination-2014, informed BSF of his ineligibility, on the basis of Deemed Graduation Certificate for the post of SI in BSF and that though he was eligible for Group ‘C’ post of ASI in CISF under the Ex-serviceman Category, but he did not qualify therefor as he had scored lesser marks than the last candidate selected for the said post. Notice dated 11th March, 2020 was issued to him, to show cause why his employment with BSF should not be terminated. The petition was filed, impugning the show cause notice. The petition came up first before this Court on 1st May, 2020, when while issuing notice thereof, upon being infor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
