IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Hansraj – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 6490 of 2021
Decided On : 12-07-2023
Training Period - Promotion to HC (AWO) - Rule 17 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 - Standing Order No.223/86 - OMs dated October 22, 1990, March 31, 1992 and August 30, 1994 - The court discussed Rule 17 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, Standing Order No.223/86, and OMs dated October 22, 1990, March 31, 1992, and August 30, 1994. The court emphasized that the training period for promotion to the post of HC (AWO) cannot be counted for the purpose of increment(s) in the scale of the concerned post, as the final promotion order is only issued after a rigorous selection process and training, and the OMs cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the promotion process under the Rules of 1980.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their representation to count their training period for the purpose of increment(s) in the scale of Head Constable (Assistant Wireless Operator). The respondents argued that the training period cannot be counted for any purpose, and the final promotion order is issued after a rigorous selection process and training.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the training period cannot be counted for the purpose of increment(s) in the scale of the concerned post, as the final promotion order is only issued after a rigorous selection process and training.
Issues: The issue was whether the training period for promotion to the post of HC (AWO) should be counted for the purpose of increment(s) in the scale of the concerned post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the training period cannot be counted for the purpose of increment(s) in the scale of the concerned post, as the final promotion order is only issued after a rigorous selection process and training.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of any merit.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated February 13, 2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.4666/2014 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by three persons including the petitioner herein.
2. The challenge in the OA by the petitioner(s) therein was to an order dated March 10, 2014, whereby, the representation of the petitioner(s) to count their training period while being promoted as Head Constable (Assistant Wireless Operator) (`HC (AWO)', for short) for the purpose of increment(s), was rejected.
3. The petitioner Hansraj (who has filed this petition) was initially appointed as constable on August 7, 1991 and was promoted (absorbed) as HC (AWO) in Communication Unit of Delhi Police on August 7, 2000. Rule 17 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (`Rules of 1980', for short), deals with appointment of Radio (Wireless) and MT Staff and Rule 17-B(IV) and appointment/promotion to the post of AWO/Teleprinter Operator (HC). Standing Order No.223/86, deals with the appointment of Assistant Wireless Operator Grade-III (HC) and Teleprinter Operator Grade-III (HC) in Delhi Police, in accordance with Rule 17-B(IV) of the amended Rules, 1986 read with Rule 13(ii) of the Rules of 1980.
4. The promotion to the post in question was to be made from amongst confirmed (Matriculate) Constables after passing VHR R.T. Course Grade-III, and having six months experience as Radio Operator by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Communication).
5. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that, promotion was to be made amongst those names which exist on promotion list - B (Technical) and the constitution of the DPC is Group-C DPC (list-B) (Tech.) as provided in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1980. It was also their case that the confirmed constables having the requisite qualification i.e., a minimum of three years of satisfactory service in Delhi Police, shall be eligible for consideration. A circular to this effect was issued, calling applications from all eligible serving Constables of Delhi Police with the recommendations of the District/Units.
6. A preliminary selection test was conducted as per the office order, and those securing 33% and above marks in each paper were selected to undergo the AWOs/Teleprinter Operator (HC) course for a period of nine months including three months practical training in batches according to the merit list.
7. On completion of AWO/TPO Grade-III Course, the constables are to appear for a test conducted by the Trade Test Board, nominated by the Commissioner of Delhi Police and are required to obtain the minimum marks as per Standing Order No.223/86. The same is as follows:
| (i) | Radio Theory | 40% |
| (ii) | Radio Procedure | 60% |
| (iii) | Practicals (Practical working and vivo-voce) | 50% |
| (iv) | Morse sending/receiving | 40% |
| (v) | Typing | 40% |
8. The names of the constables selected by the DPC are brought on list - B (Technical) (as per Rules of 1980) in the order of their seniority in the rank of Constable in their respective categories. Thereafter, promotion orders are issued under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1980.
9. It was also the case of the respondents that, insofar as the direct recruitment is concerned, the candidates fulfilling the requisite qualifications as provided in Senior No.8 of Rule 17-B(IV) are put to selection test by the Trade Test Board and those who are selected are appointed as Head Constable (Wireless Operator)/Head Constable (AWO) on temporary basis. Thereafter, they are sent for training of three months and on having passed the AWO Trade Training Test, they continue in service. Since, they are first appointed as HC AWO/Wireless Operator though on temporary basis, they are entitled to the pay scale of the post of Head Constable even during their training.
10. It was the case of the respondents that the petitioner and other similarly pla
Court directs committee to review constable-to-head constable promotions flawed by high merit-test quota, irregularity, stagnation, and sub-cadre discrimination, ensuring fair avenues despite state p....
Retrospective appointments must ensure promotion eligibility and respect seniority as per judicial rulings.
The government has the authority to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of its employees and determine the qualifications and conditions for promotion, with a limited scope of judicial review....
Ad-hoc promotions do not entitle officers to claim seniority from the date of ad-hoc promotion, and seniority should be based on actual regular promotion as per the statutory provisions.
Promotions in the police service must follow year-wise vacancy determinations, and changes in seniority require due process and adherence to established rules.
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.