Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Rakesh Meena & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 6552 of 2021
Decided On : 15-07-2021
Delay in Seeking Appointment - Recruitment of Constables - The court dismissed the petitioners' claim for appointment as constables in the Railway Protection Force due to the delay in seeking appointment, which was found to be highly belated and would create issues of seniority and competition with other candidates.
Fact of the Case:
The 76 petitioners sought appointment as Constables in the Railway Protection Force (RPF)/Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) after their names were not included in the Select List published in 2014. They argued that the respondents did not prepare a Supplementary List of 20% of the vacancies as required by the Standing Order, and misstated facts in compliance with a court order, resulting in the petitioners not pursuing the matter further.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioners' claim to be highly belated, as the cause of action accrued 7 years ago, and dismissed the petition due to the delay in seeking appointment. The court also noted that the petitioners would have to compete with others seeking appointment for the current vacancies and could not seek appointment based on their performance nearly a decade ago.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in seeking appointment and the failure to prepare a Supplementary List of vacancies as required by the Standing Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had slept over their rights and could not seek appointment after 7 years, as it would create issues of seniority and competition with other candidates. The delay was found to be highly belated, and the petitioners were not entitled to appointment based on their performance nearly a decade ago.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the delay in seeking appointment would create issues of seniority and competition with other candidates, and the petitioners could not seek appointment after 7 years.
JUDGMENT
1. Cm No.20569/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6552/2021
3. The 76 petitioners were candidates for recruitment as Constables in the respondents Railway Protection Force (RPF)/Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF), pursuant to the recruitment notification of November, 2011 for 17087 posts of Constables. The Select List of the said recruitment process was finally published on 17th September, 2014 and which did not contain the names of the petitioners.
4. The counsel for the petitioners has argued, that some other candidates, similarly placed as the petitioners, as well as some of the 76 petitioners herein, aggrieved from non-inclusion of their name in the Select List, in or about the year 2015, approached the Allahabad High Court by filing W.P.(C) No.65319/2015 and which writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28th April, 2015, directing the respondents to dispose of representations of the petitioners. It is further the contention of the counsel for the petitioners, that the respondents RPF/RPSF, in compliance of the said direction, vide communication dated 2nd June, 2015 informed that the names of the petitioners before the Allahabad High Court were not included in the Select List as they were below the cut-off.
5. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that, (i) though the respondents RPF/RPSF, vide Standing Order No. 85 of March, 2009 on the subject of "Procedure Regarding Recruitment of Constables in RPF/RPSF" were required to prepare a panel as well as a supplementary list of 20% of the vacancies, candidates wherein would be on standby and would be considered for empanelment if there was any shortfall in empanelment from the main panel, but did not prepare the said Supplementary List of 20% of the vacancies; (ii) there was always a possibility of several candidates in the Select List not joining and the 20% Supplementary List was required to be prepared to fill up such vacant positions from the candidates in the Supplementary List; and, (iii) the respondents, in their communication in compliance of the order of the Allahabad High Court, misstated facts and which resulted in the petitioners therein and herein not pursuing the matter further.
6. The counsel for the petitioners has further informed that some other persons similarly situated as the petitioners had filed petition in this Court also, being W.P.(C) No.4526/2018 and which also stood dismissed on 5th December, 2019. It is stated that the petitioners have only now learnt that there are still some vacancies. Direction/relief in this petition, of abiding by Clauses 13 and 14 of Standing Order No.85 of 2009 and of consideration of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Constable in pursuance to the Recruitment Notification of 2011, is sought.
7. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioners, whether not each panel prepared for appointment, including a supplementary panel, has a life of its own and what is the life provided for the subject panel.
8. The counsel for the petitioners states that no provision with respect to the life of the panel is contained in the Standing Order aforesaid.
9. Even if it is so, a panel drawn up pursuant to Recruitment Notification issued 10 years ago and results whereof were announced 7 years ago, cannot be for ever and recruitments cannot continue to happen even after a decade.
10. Not only so, even if there was any violation of the Standing Order by the respondents, in not preparing a Supplementary List/Penal, the cause of action with respect thereto accrued 7 years ago i.e. on 17th September, 2014 and this petition is highly belated. The petitioners are found to have slept over their rights and cannot, in the matter of appointment/recruitment, wake up after 7 years and seek appointment. The same, if permitted, would play havoc with various issues including of seniority etc continuing to arise in future.
11. As far as
Delay in seeking appointment can result in the dismissal of a claim, especially when it creates issues of seniority and competition with other candidates.
Recruitment panels have a finite lifespan; delays in pursuing claims undermine candidates' eligibility for subsequent vacancies.
Waiting lists do not confer vested rights for appointment, and recruitment processes can lapse with new selections, as confirmed by the court.
The court affirmed that candidates on a Reserve Panel possess a legitimate expectation for appointment to unfilled vacancies, urging compliance with established recruitment protocols.
Candidates must be afforded due process and cannot be rejected based on mere suspicion, especially when they have secured higher marks than the last selected candidates.
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
