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

1997 Supreme(Raj) 843

Rajasthan High Court
Honble BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.
Shesh Mal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2959 of 1993
Decided On : November 19, 1997

Advocates Appeared:
S.K. Malik for Petitioner Vineet Kumar Mathur for Union of India

Headnote:C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955, Rule 16 and Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rule 5(1) – Recruited to Central Reserve Police Force and was under training – While going under training applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) – Application not rooted through C.R.P.F. – Selected for the post and sought his discharge from service to join at his new selected post – Service terminated – One months notice was given under Rule 16 by C.R.P.F. – Held – Termination was valid and lawful.

       

Honble PRASAD, J.–The petitioner in the present writ petition was recruited to Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was sent for training to the Recruitment Training Centre II, CRPF Avadi, Madras. While the petitioner was undergoing training, certain posts of Sub Inspector (GD) were advertised by the Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi. The petitioner had the requisite qualification as advertised and, therefore, he moved to the Principal, Recruitment Training Centre II, CRPF, Avadi and this application of the petitioner (Annex. P/1) was forwarded by the Principal of the Training Centre to Additional D.I.G.P. Group Centre, CRPF (G.C. II) vide Annex. P/2. Further the case of the petitioner is that he thought of going for the open competition for the post of Sub Inspector (GD) without having any concession whatsoever as a Departmental Candidate.

(2). That the petitioner received a communication Annex. P/3 from the office of the Additional D.I.G.P. Group Centre-I, CRPF, Ajmer whereby, he was required to bring with him certain certificates including the No Objection Certificate from the present employer, if employed. The case of the petitioner is that vide Annex. P/4 he applied for the NOC being granted to him. Vide Annex. P/5 result of the selection was declared and the petitioner was declared as selected and figured in the S.C. Quota at serial No. 19 in the list issued by the Director General of CRPF.

(3). The petitioner for getting selected had to appear in the examination and for that he took leave from the 3rd Battalion for appearing in the examination and during the period of leave he appeared in the examination. Subsequent to his selection he tendered his resignation and in his resignation he sought to get relieved within 24 hours. But, instead of relieving the petitioner, his services were terminated vide Annex. P/6 in terms of sub rule 1 of Rule 5.

(4). The petitioner has challenged his termination on the ground that the order is though an order simplicitor, but it is infact actuated by malafides because when the petitioner sought his discharge from service to join at his new selected post i.e. of Sub Inspector (G.D.) the respondents felt agitated that the petitioner has qualifi- ed for the higher post and they terminated the service of the petitioner.

(5). Further the grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annex. P/8 his selection to the post of Sub Inspector (G.D.) in CRPF has also been cancelled as he has not obtained no objection certificate from the 3rd Battalion, CRPF before submitting his application for getting selected as Sub Inspector (G.D.) and has violated the pro- visions of Recruitment Rules. It has further been mentioned in the order Annex. P/8 that the competent authority has not permitted the petitioner to join the post of Sub Inspector (G.D.) CRPF, therefore, his selection for Sub Inspector (G.D.) was cancelled.

(6). The respondents have put in their appearance and have contested the claim of the petitioner. They have stated that the petitioner has not routed his appli- cation through any office under which he was working. He has done so because he has not completed minimum required service of 3 years for recruitment as per advertisement. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner has applied for no objection certificate on 22.7.92, whereas, the last date of submitting the form was 15.6.92 and, therefore, his application for grant of NOC was not consi- dered. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has admitted that he has applied directly, therefore, the required conditions as advertised were not satisfied as he was required to route his application through proper channel or obtain No Objection Certificate from his employer. No only that the petitioner has not routed his application through proper channel, but he also kept his employer i.e. the res- pondents under dark about his effort to obtain employment in question as Sub Inspector (G.D.). The respondents have produced on record An









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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