Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Kishan Mal Lodha, Surendra Nath Bhargava, JJ.
Surendra Pal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India (Uoi) and Ors. and Vice Versa - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 29 and 28 of 1979.
Decided On : 10-03-1986
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE - SENIORITY - PROSECUTING INSPECTORS - ASSISTANT SECURITY OFFICER - ELIGIBILITY - RULES, REGULATIONS AND RECRUITMENT RULES - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Prosecuting Inspector in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), challenged the seniority assigned to non-petitioner No. 6 over him in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade II and Prosecuting Inspector Grade I. He also sought a declaration that Prosecuting Inspectors in the RPF are eligible for selection to all posts of Assistant Security Officer (ASO) and that he was eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of ASO at the time when appointments were made on that post.
Finding of the Court:
1. The seniority of the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 6 in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade II was correctly fixed in the impugned seniority list on the basis of their respective dates of appointment to the grade, and the subsequent event of training at the Police Training College is of no relevance in the matter of fixation of their seniority. 2. The petitioner cannot be assigned seniority over non-petitioner No. 6 in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade I. 3. The Prosecuting Inspectors in the RPF are eligible for selection to all posts of ASO in the RPF, and the petitioner was eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of ASO at the time when appointments were made on that post.
Issues: 1. Whether the seniority of the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 6 in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade II was correctly fixed in the impugned seniority list? 2. Whether the petitioner can be assigned seniority over non-petitioner No. 6 in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade I? 3. Whether the Prosecuting Inspectors in the RPF are eligible for selection to all posts of ASO in the RPF?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The seniority of the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 6 in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade II was correctly fixed in the impugned seniority list on the basis of their respective dates of appointment to the grade, and the subsequent event of training at the Police Training College is of no relevance in the matter of fixation of their seniority, as per Regulation 26(iii) of the Railway Protection Force Regulations, which governs the seniority of Sub-Inspectors and is not applicable to Prosecuting Inspectors Grade II. 2. The petitioner cannot be assigned seniority over non-petitioner No. 6 in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade I, as per the finding of the learned Single Judge. 3. The Prosecuting Inspectors in the RPF are eligible for selection to all posts of ASO in the RPF, and the petitioner was eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of ASO at the time when appointments were made on that post, as per Rule 24 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959, read with the Railway Protection Force (Superior Officer Recruitment) Rules, 1968, and Para 3 of Chapter XII of the Railway Protection Force Regulations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's appeal in part, setting aside the finding of the learned Single Judge that non-petitioner No. 6 is senior to the petitioner, and holding that the petitioner is senior to non-petitioner No. 6 in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade-I. The court dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the Union of India and others, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the Prosecuting Inspectors in the Railway Protection Force are eligible for selection to all the posts of Assistant Security Officer in the Railway Protection Force and the petitioner was eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Security Officer at the time when the appointments were made on that post on Feb. 3, 1976.
(1) that assignment of seniority of Shri P.N. Midha over petitioner Surendrapal Singh Verma is correct whereby negativing the claim of the petitioner Surendra Pal Singh regarding the seniority over Shri P.N. Midha in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade If, as well as in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector, Grade-I;
(2) that the Prosecuting Inspectors in the Railway Protection Force are eligible for selection to all the posts of Assistant Security Officer in the Railway Protection Force and the petitioner Surendrapal Singh was eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Security Officer at the time when appointments were made on that post on February 3, 1976 and the Union of India; the Railway Board, New Delhi; the Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, and the Chief Security Officer, Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi, were directed to make appointment on the post of Assistant Security Officer after taking into consideration the merits and suitability of the petitioner on the basis that the petitioner was eligible for appointment to that post on February 3, 1976.
(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the Order dated 28-3-1974 of the Chief Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, New Delhi, communicated vide letter dated 2-4-1974 (Ex. 6) assigning Seniority to the Respondent No. 6 in the category of Prosecuting Inspectors Grade II may be quashed;
(b) Further, by an appropriate writ, order or direction it may be declared that the Petitioner is senior to Respondent No. 6 in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade-I;
(c) Further by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondents No. 1 to 5 may be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Security Officer;
(d) If any order promoting any person who may be junior to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Security Officer is in the meanwhile made then by an appropriate writ, order or direction the same may be quashed on being produced;
(e) Further, if any preferential treatment is given to Respondent No. 6 by reckoning him senior to the Petitioner either in the category of Prosecuting Inspector Grade-II or Grade-I then the said order may be quashed by an appropriate writ, order or direction, with all consequential reliefs;
(f) Further, by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondents No. 1 to 5 may be directed to confirm the Petitioner on the post of Prosecuting Inspector Grade-II;
(g) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which ma
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
