IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Asi/t Arun Kumar Mishra And Ors - Appellant
Versus
Union of India And Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15102 of 2022
Decided On : 26-02-2024
Writ of Certiorari - Challenge to Gradation List - Central Reserve Police Force Group 'B' and 'C' Recruitment Rules, 2006 - Clause 4 Column 12 - [HC (RF) remustered as ASI (T)] - [Rules of 2006, para 9.7 (d)(ii) and (e), Chapter 40 of Swamy's Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration] - The court considered the challenge to the gradation list and the seniority of HC (RF) remustered as ASI (T) in light of the Rules of 2006 and relevant provisions, and held that the petitioners' challenge lacked merit as it was filed after a significant delay and was based on relevant instructions and Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of Clause 4 Column 12 of the Central Reserve Police Force Group 'B' and 'C' Recruitment Rules, 2006, and the gradation list dated 01.03.2016 for ASI/T, claiming denial of seniority and other benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the challenge to the gradation list lacked merit as it was filed after a significant delay and was based on relevant instructions and Rules.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the challenge to the gradation list was hit by delay and laches, and whether the petitioners were entitled to the seniority and benefits they sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the challenge lacked merit as it was filed after a significant delay and was based on relevant instructions and Rules, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court, with no costs awarded to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(A) Issue of a Writ of Certiorari quashing Clause 4 Column 12 of the Schedule of the Central Reserve Police Force Croup 'B' and 'C (Radio Operator, Crypto, Technical, Radio Fitter, Draughtsman) (Non-Gazetted) Male or Female ranks (Signals) Recruitment Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') to the extent it states that a Head Constable (Radio Fitter) shall be remustered as an Assistant Sub Inspector (Technical) after they are selected in the aptitude test end successfully qualify the Basic Radio Mechanic Course (BRMC),
(B) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing of the gradation list dated 01.03.2016 for ASI/T.
(C) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing all orders denying the Petitioners the seniority from the date the BRMC commences
(D) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to refix the seniority of the Petitioners as ASI/T from the date of commencement of their respective BRMC Course
(E) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant 1st MACP to the Petitioners w.e.f. the date of completion of 10 years since the commencement of their BRMC and ail other consequential benefits.
(F) Pass any other appropriate order/direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper."
2. According to Ms. Ankita Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners are seeking quashing of Clause 4 Column 12 of the Schedule of the Central Reserve Police Force Group `B' and `C' (Radio Operator, Crypto, Technical, Radio Fitter, Draughtsman) (Non-Gazetted) Male or Female ranks (Signals) Recruitment Rules, 2006 (`Rules of 2006', for short) to the extent, it states that a Head Constable (Radio Fitter) [`HC (RF)', for short] shall be remustered as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Technical) [`ASI (T)', for short] after they are selected in the aptitude test and successfully qualify the Basic Radio Mechanic Course (`BRMC', for short). According to her, the gradation list dated March 1, 2016 for ASI (T) denying the seniority to the petitioners from the date BRMC commences is bad. She states, as per the Recruitment Rules in order to remuster as ASI (T), HC (RF) must qualify the aptitude test and undergo BRMC and it is only after successful completion of BRMC, he is remustered. She further states that the petitioner Nos.1 to 42 underwent BRMC-38 from November 14, 2011 to June 30, 2012 and their results were declared on July 27, 2012 but were granted the seniority as ASI (T) w.e.f. August 2, 2012. While the direct recruits to the post of ASI (T) were first made to undergo basic training of 11 months and thereafter, they underwent BRTC for a duration of almost 11 months and despite which they were granted seniority as ASI (T) from the date of joining of CRPF and not from the date on which they completed the training.
3. It is her submission that the petitioners who completed BRMC-38 on June 30, 2012 were granted seniority w.e.f. August 2, 2012 but the direct recruits who completed the BRTC-39 much later on December 30, 2013, i.e., almost a year and half later, were granted seniority as ASI (T) above the petitioners w.e.f. January 16, 2012 and as such, the action of the respondents is irrational, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. Based on the aforesaid submissions, she states, the gradation list needs to be redrawn and also the benefits thereof must flow to the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the petitioners had joined CRPF as Constable between 1997-2004. Later on they were selected in Basic Radio Fitter Aptitude Test (`BRFAT', for short) and after successful completion of BRFAT, they were remustered in Signal Cadre as HC (RF). According to Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents, after completion of two years of service as HC (RF), those willing could appear in
The main legal point established in the judgment is that challenges to administrative decisions must be timely and based on relevant legal provisions to merit consideration by the court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of Gazette Notifications and their impact on determining seniority, considering past practice and the impact of delays in revising se....
The court upheld that seniority must be determined based on recruitment batch and performance in training, emphasizing timely challenges to promotions are essential to maintain stability in service r....
Promotions in public service must adhere to established seniority principles, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural requirements in administrative decisions.
For employees recruited through a formal selection process, inter se seniority must be determined strictly according to merit rank as specified by governing service guidelines, rather than by the dat....
The appointment date and seniority of a candidate should be based on their exam rank, and failure to communicate potential loss of seniority can be held against the authorities.
Point of Law : Cognizance of the State resorting to irregular recruitment and issued a direction to the effect that seniority of direct recruits, both outsiders and insiders should be determined acco....
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.