SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, JJ.
SACHIN – Petitioner
Versus
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 90, 301 of 2023, C.M. APPL. Nos. 295, 1186 of 2023
Decided On : 20-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ajay Garg, Tripti Gola, Lhingdeihat Chongloi, Arvind Sardana, Harjot Singh.
For the Respondents: Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Srish Kumar Mishra, Sagar Mehlawat, Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Anubha Bhardwaj, Dev P. Bhardwaj, Vivek Nagar.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 14 – Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – Rule 9 – Central Reserve Police Force – Equity before law – Captioned two petitions have been filed by petitioners seeking a direction to respondents for relaxation of upper age limit for appearing in examination for recruitment to post of Head Constable (Ministerial) vide advertisement – Held, Court has no contrary case as one taken by Supreme Court in High Court of Delhi case that candidates like petitioners have been deprived to seek recruitment in CRPF for no fault of theirs, due to non-conduct of examination by CRPF examination for post of Head Constable by respondent – Court petitioners and similarly situated personnel cannot be deprived of right to appear in examination – Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.

1. The above-captioned two petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents for relaxation of the upper age limit for appearing in examination for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in CRPF-2022 vide advertisement issued on 27.12.2022.

2. Since the subject-matter of both the captioned petitions is similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are that an advertisement for recruitment to the post of ASI (Steno) Head Constable (Ministerial) in CRPF-2022 was uploaded on the website on 27.12.2022 inviting the interested applicants. The last date for applying to the said post is 25.01.2023. The scheme of the examination comprises of Computer Based Test, Skill Test, Physical Standard Test (PST), Documents Verification (DV), Detailed Medical Test (DME) and Review Medical Test (RME). The age limit of candidates prescribed therein is from 18 to 25 years as on the closing date of receipt of application i.e. 25.01.2023, meaning thereby, a candidate should not born before 26.01.1998 or after 25.01.2005.

4. The grievance raised by the petitioners in these petitions is that respondent No. 1 had issued a detailed advertisement in 2016 for filling-up 686 vacancies for direct recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) but the petitioners herein could not be selected. Thereafter, only on 27.12.2022, i.e. after a period of six years, an advertisement for filling-up vacancies to the said post has been issued. The petitioners are aggrieved that the age limit of the candidates prescribed for the said posts is from 18 to 25 years but since no recruitment was conducted arbitrarily for last 5-6 years, the petitioners have become over-aged and have crossed the maximum prescribed age limit, i.e. 25 years and thereby, unable to apply for the said examination.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) vide its numerous Office Memorandums dated 13.06.2016, 23.06.2016, 02.11.2016 and 23.12.2016 has mandated that all Government Departments/Organisations shall post all the vacancies on the National Career Services (NCS) Portal in a timely manner. However, since the respondent No. 1 has not been posting the vacancies for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) for the last 5-6 years, therefore, some of the petitioners filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 3874/2022 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct the recruitment for the said post without any delay and to relax the upper age limit. According to petitioners, this Court vide order dated 08.03.2022 in the said petition had directed the respondent No. 1 to act upon the said Office Memorandum No. F. No. 43014/03/2019-Estt(B) dated 21.01.2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training within a period of six weeks. Even thereafter, when no notification regarding filling-up of vacancies of the post in question was issued by the respondents, the petitions preferred a Contempt Petition being CONT. CAS. (C) No. 531/2022 against the respondents, wherein this Court vide order dated 30.08.2022, deferred the orders in view of pendency of a Review Petition No. 192/2022 filed by the respondents. In the said review petition, the respondents admitted that vacancies for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) were lying vacant for the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. The said review petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2022 with directions to the respondents to complete the recruitment process for the said vacancies within eight months.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top