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

2024 Supreme(Del) 468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Pawan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Sashastra Seema Bal - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 14821 of 2022 and CM APPL. No. 45558 of 2022
Decided On : 22-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Mehaak Jaggi, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Abhishek Khanna, GP for UOI, for the Respondents

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a decision by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and the importance of vigilance clearance in the context of considering candidature for a government position.

Headnote:

Candidature - Rejection of Candidature for Assistant Commandant (GD) - SSB Act, 2007 - [SSB Act, 2007, Section 26] - The court considered the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) based on the requirement of a clean record of service as per the Recruitment Rules prescribed by the concerned Force. The court emphasized the importance of vigilance clearance and disciplinary proceedings, and highlighted the need for a decision by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The judgment focused on the interpretation of the advertisement and Office Memorandum issued by the SSB, and concluded that there was no evidence of a pending vigilance case or disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner at the time of his Service Certificate verification. The court remanded the matter back to the respondent to ascertain the status of the vigilance case or disciplinary enquiry, and directed the respondent to take a decision within a specified period.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought consideration of his candidature for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) based on his unblemished service record. The SSB rejected his candidature citing a pending Record of Evidence (RoE) and a charge sheet issued against him.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence of a pending vigilance case or disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner at the time of his Service Certificate verification, and emphasized the need for a decision by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the respondent had rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) based on the requirement of a clean record of service as per the Recruitment Rules prescribed by the concerned Force.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the advertisement and Office Memorandum issued by the SSB, and the absence of evidence of a pending vigilance case or disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner at the time of his Service Certificate verification.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and remanded the matter back to the respondent to ascertain the status of the vigilance case or disciplinary enquiry, and directed the respondent to take a decision within a specified period. The court dismissed a related application as infructuous.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

    "(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby setting aside the letter no. 361/RC/SSB/AC(GD)/LDCE-2018/2021/4042-48 dated 23.08.2022 whereby the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD), Sashastra Seema Bal has been rejected;

    (b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent to approve the candidature of the Petitoner for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD), Sashastra Seema Bal;

    (c) Allow the present writ petition with exemplary compensation, costs and litigation expenses in favour of the petitioner; and

    (d) Pass any such order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in favour of the petitioner."

    2. In substance, the petitioner is praying for consideration of his candidature for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) in the Sashastra Seema Bal ('SSB', for short).

    3. On November 26, 2012, the petitioner joined SSB and commenced training at Tejpur, Assam. On completion of his training, he was posted at Virpur, Bihar in the month of January, 2014 on the post of Sub-Inspector. Later in the month of April, 2018, he was transferred to Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh. On June 05, 2018, he was promoted to the post of Inspector.

    4. On April 22, 2022, SSB issued an advertisement for selection to the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces ('CAPF', for short) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the vacancy year 2018-2022. The eligibility condition for the appointment to the said post also included a candidate to have clean record of service as per Recruitment Rules prescribed by the concerned Force. In April, 2022, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD).

    5. It is his case that, he has an unblemished and uninterrupted service record and has not received any punishment during his service in the SSB. It is also his case that the Inspector General certified his Service Certificate that, "there is no vigilance/disciplinary case either pending or contemplated" against the petitioner.

    6. On May 27, 2022, the Assistant Commandant (GD), SSB, Pilibhit received the name of the petitioner who had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) and the same was forwarded to check whether the petitioner had availed/not availed the chance for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) through LDCE. In fact, on August 10, 2022, the Recruitment Branch of FHQ, all formations of SSB were asked to immediately reconcile service details and apprise about punishments awarded, if any, in respect of the 501 candidates as per list enclosed.

    7. According to the petitioner, his name was at serial No.461 of the said list. On August 23, 2022, the letter issued by the Recruitment Branch, FHQ, was communicated to all formation of SSB, that the Director General, SSB, had approved the candidature in respect of 499 candidates to appear in the written examination, excluding the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Inspector General but the same was not responded to which resulted in the filing of the present petition.

    8. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the SSB was nominated as a Nodal Agency to conduct the LDCE for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) for CAPFs. Reference has been made in the counter affidavit about the advertisement issued by the SSB on April 22, 2022, by circulating to all CAPFs. The FHQs, SSB, vide letter dated February 22, 2022 requested to all formations of SSB to obtain applications from eligible and willing candidates in the prescribed format from units under their control and forward them to FHQ along with DE/Vigilance clearance certificate from the appropriate authority.

    A reference has been made to the eligibility conditions in the following manner:-

      "The candidates should have comple

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        Judicial Analysis

        AI

        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