Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Kashif Fahim - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11704 of 2021
Decided On : 21-10-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to recruitment rules and post creation (Para 1) |
| 2. direction to resolve pending representation (Para 2) |
| 3. clarification on merits not addressed (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 25th February, 2011 and 05th October, 2016 issued by the respondents to the extent it has created posts of Assistant Commandant and Deputy Commandant, respectively, in Ministerial Cadre. Petitioner also challenges the Central Reserve Police Force Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) Group A Post Recruitment Rules, 2011 and the Central Reserve Police Force Deputy Commandant (Ministerial) and Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2017. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to divert said illegally created posts in Ministerial cadre to the Executive Cadre of Central Reserve Police Force.
2. A perusal of the paper book reveals that though the petitioner no. 1 had preferred a detailed representation dated 24th May, 2020 to the Director General CRPF on the afore-noted aspect, yet the same has not been decided till date. Consequently, this Court disposes of the present Writ Petition by directing Director General, CRPF to decide the petitioner's no. 1 representation dated 24th May, 2020 by way of a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within twelve weeks. At the request of learned senior counsel for the petitioners, petitioner is given an opportunity to file additional grounds in support of the representation within two weeks with the Director General, CRPF.
3. However, this Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties, including plea of latches are left open.
Judicial intervention is warranted when there is undue delay in responding to representations made by citizens, affirming the right to timely administrative action.
Judicial remedies require prior administrative representations in employment disputes to ensure procedural compliance.
The court emphasized the need for the respondents to take a final decision on the recommendations within a specified timeframe.
The Court ruled that decisions concerning employment posts must be made by appropriate higher authorities, ensuring due process and jurisdictional compliance in administrative decisions.
The court affirmed the necessity for procedural fairness in administrative decision-making, particularly in response to representations regarding recruitment vacancies.
The court emphasizes that pending representations must be decided with reasoned orders, ensuring that administrative decisions are not made mechanically.
Promotions in public service must balance individual rights with public interest, emphasizing necessary experience for senior positions.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering public interest and the necessary experience in public office when granting promotions, even in cases where petitioners have succeeded in their c....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
