The court upheld the government's authority to amend training policies for CRPF personnel, affirming that personnel must complete updated requirements regardless of their initial induction conditions.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The four petitioners, who were appointed as Constables (GD) in the respondents Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) between the years 2005 and 2013, in sports quota, have filed this petition impugning, (i) the order dated 20th April, 2017 whereby Phase-II of induction training of those recruited in the sports quota has been introduced; and, (ii) the signal dated 20th July, 2021 whereby the petitioners have been directed to report for Phase-II of induction training, commencing on 16th August, 2021.

2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents CRPF appearing on advance notice.

3. The counsel for the petitioners has argued, that (i) the petitioners, at the time of joining in sports quota, were made to do 16 weeks instead of 44 weeks of basic training which other fresh recruits are required to undertake; (ii) the petitioners No. 1 and 2 were eliminated/weeded out from the team of the sports in which they represented CRPF and against quota whereof they were recruited, in the years 2010 and 2011 respectively; (iii) though earlier there was no provision, of personnel inducted in the sports quota being required to complete their balance induction training on any Phase-II of training, after their being weeded out/removed from sports team for whatsoever reason, but the same was introduced for the first time on 20th April, 2017; (iv) though the said change is/ought to be prospective in nature, but is being applied even to those inducted in the sports quota prior to 20th April, 2017, by asking them to undergo the Phase-II of training; (v) the petitioners are now over 40 years of age and cannot be made to undergo the balance 28 weeks of rigorous training meant for new inductees of the age of 20-22 years; and, (vi) some of the petitioners have been weeded out from the sports team, which they represented, for the reason of having suffered injuries and which injuries will also come in the way of the petitioners undergoing the training.

4. The petitioners themselves, in the petition have pleaded, that the aforesaid balance training is necessary to enable the petitioners to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion.

5. We have thus enquired from the counsel for the petitioners, whether the petitioners are willing to forego the right of participation in the LDCE or to any other promotion/benefit, for the reason of having not undergone the training for which they are sought to be sent.

6. The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are willing to forego such rights.

7. Though in the petition, it is also pleaded that some of the personnel inducted in the sports quota are on the verge of retirement and ought not, at the fag end of their service tenure be made to undergo the basic training required to be undertaken at the time of induction, but on enquiry, the counsel for the petitioners states that none of the four petitioners before this Court fall in the said category.

8. As far as the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners, of the Policy being prospective for the reason of having come into force after the induction of the petitioners is concerned, no merit is found therein. It has been held in Col. A.S. Sangwan Vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1545 that the personnel of a force like the respondents CRPF are subject to Rules and Reg