IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Subhash Chandra Sharma And Anr - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Anr Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 3509 of 2021; C.M. Appls No. 10622 of 2021, 10623 of 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2021
Promotion - Reversion - Seniority List - RPF Rules, 1987
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were reverted from the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Head Constable despite being promoted to the posts of ASI in 2016. They sought directions to maintain the status quo in their rank.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioners to make a representation against the reversion letter and ordered that the representation should be disposed of within twelve weeks. The reversion letter was not to be given effect to until the representation was disposed of.
Issues: Challenge to reversion from ASI to Head Constable, preparation of seniority list, compliance with RPF Rules, 1987
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the petitioners to have an opportunity to make a representation against the reversion and for the representation to be disposed of in a reasoned manner within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of with the directions for the petitioners to make a representation against the reversion letter and for the representation to be disposed of within twelve weeks.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - Present writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 10th March, 2021 issued by the Respondents wherein the Petitioners were reverted from the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Head Constable despite being promoted to the posts of ASI in the year 2016. Petitioners also seek directions to the Respondents to maintain the status quo in the rank of the Petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners were appointed in Railway Protection Force and Railway Protection Special Force as Constables and were promoted to the rank of Head Constable in 2002. He further states that the Petitioners were subsequently promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in 2016.
3. He states that Respondents passed an order dated 18th April 2019, which relates to the order passed in case of WP(C) No.11293/2016 (Gurupratap's case) for compliance to which the present Petitioners were not parties. He emphasises that the grievance of the Petitioners were aggravated when the Respondents vide the Impugned Letter dated 10th March, 2021 passed orders and prepared a seniority list where the Petitioners names appeared in the list of Head Constables instead of Assistant Sub-Inspectors without considering that the Petitioners were promoted under Rule 70 of RPF Rules, 1987.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that this Court in Ashok Singh Bhadauria & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. and Ranveer Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. vide judgment dated 17th December 2020 has held that the decision in Gurupratap Singh & Ors. vs Union of India is not a judgment in rem but a judgment in personam. He submits that it was also clarified in the subsequent judgment that Standing Order No. 70 was not quashed by the earlier decision.
5. Issue notice.
6. Mr. J.K. Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court in the interest of justice directs the Petitioners to make a representation against the letter dated 10th March, 2021 within three weeks. The said representation shall be disposed of by way of a reasoned order within twelve weeks thereafter. Till the Petitioners' representation is disposed of, the letter dated 10th March, 2021 shall not be given effect to.
8. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition along with pending applications are disposed of.
The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for representation and the need for reasoned disposal of the representation within a specified timeframe.
Promotion orders in employment must adhere to proper procedures, and affected parties have the right to contest decisions that adversely impact their employment status.
Promotions under Rule 70 of RPF Rules must be reflected in seniority listings, and prior judgments affecting individuals must be precisely interpreted to uphold their rights.
The court held that the persons not party to a case cannot be bound by its judgment and emphasized the need for a reasoned order regarding seniority disputes.
The court upheld the validity of a change in promotion criteria and ruled that the petitioners' claims for retrospective promotion were barred by res judicata due to a prior judgment.
Settled seniority cannot be unsettled after the lapse of several years, and belated claims for retrospective promotion can disrupt the established seniority and promotion positions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consequences of concealing material facts and the voluntariness of the petitioners' applications to work in RPF as Constables in Kashmir Valley....
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.