Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJAN ROY, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
Prashant Kumar Rai and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 73 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sudhanshu Chauhan.
For the Respondents: Pratyush Tripathi, Alok Kumar Tripathi.

IMPORTANT POINT
The Standing Order No. 1 of 2009 provides a framework for determining the seniority of Assistant Commandants in the C.R.P.F., particularly for those who are unable to complete training due to medical reasons, ensuring that such candidates are placed appropriately in the seniority list.

Headnote:
SENIORITY - Central Reserve Police Force Recruitment - Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949; Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955; Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 2001; Standing Order No. 1 of 2009 - The court discussed the interpretation of seniority provisions under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 2001 and the Standing Order No. 1 of 2009. It emphasized that seniority for Assistant Commandants is determined based on the aggregate marks obtained during training and selection, and that the Standing Order provides clarity on how to handle cases where candidates are unable to complete training due to medical reasons. The court concluded that the respondent's seniority should be aligned with the 42nd batch, as per the provisions of the Standing Order, which has statutory force.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was selected for the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) but was unable to complete training with the 42nd batch due to medical issues. He was subsequently allowed to join the 43rd batch and completed his training. The respondent claimed seniority with the 42nd batch, which was denied, leading to a writ petition that was initially allowed by the writ court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant rules and standing orders regarding seniority. It emphasized that the Standing Order No. 1 of 2009, which clarifies seniority determination, was not adequately considered in the writ court's judgment.
Issues: Whether the respondent is entitled to seniority with the 42nd batch despite completing training with the 43rd batch, and whether the Standing Order No. 1 of 2009 applies to his case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Standing Order No. 1 of 2009, which has statutory backing, governs the determination of seniority for candidates who are unable to complete training due to medical reasons. The respondent's seniority should be aligned with the 42nd batch as per the provisions of the Standing Order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the writ court's judgment and allowed the special appeal, directing that the respondent's seniority be assigned to the 42nd batch.

JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants-Union of India and Shri Alok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. This is a special appeal filed by Union of India and its authorities, challenging the judgment of the writ Court dated 29.03.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 16632 of 2019.

4. The writ Court has allowed the writ petition of the respondent No. 1 claiming seniority with the 42nd batch of trainees with reference to Central Reserve Police Force Group A (General Duty) Officer Recruitment Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2001”) and in doing so it has relied upon a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Niraj Kumar vs. Union of India and others rendered in Writ Petition (C) No. 6506 of 2016 decided on 20.03.2019.

5. Relevant extract of the writ Court judgment containing the reasons in support of its conclusion are as under:

“Rule 8 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 2001 and the Standing Order of 2009 are to be read in harmony and in consonance. Inter-se the seniority of Direct Recruits (Assistant Commandant) is to be determined on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and marks obtained during training in the academy. The department has treated the petitioner to be an appointee of 42nd Batch, however, marks obtained by him in 43rd Batch training have been added and he has been placed amongst the Direct Recruits (Assistant Commandant) of 43rd Batch.

I am of the view that this interpretation of C.R.P.F. Rules, 2001 and Standing Order of 2009 would run contrary to the express provisions of Rule 8 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 2001. Once the petitioner was treated to be appointee of Direct Recruits of 42nd Batch, his seniority cannot be fixed amongst the Direct Recruits of 43rd Batch merely on the ground that he could complete the training with 43rd Batch appointees.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I allow this petition and the impugned orders so far fixing the seniority of the petitioner in 43rd Batch are set aside. The respondents are directed to assign the seniority of 42nd Batch to the petitioner, keeping him at the bottom of 42nd Batch.”

6. Against the aforesaid backdrop, we may mention the relevant facts in brief.

7 The respondent No. 1 was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as “C.R.P.F.”) in pursuance to an examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “U.P.S.C.”) on 24.09.2009. An offer of appointment was issued to the respondent No. 1 on 02.04.2010 to report at C.R.P.F. Academy, Gurgaon on or before 15.05.2010 to undergo training with the 42nd batch. The respondent No. 1 joined training on 03.06.2010. While undergoing training, respondent No. 1 was diagnosed with tuberculosis in right cervical region and missed training for more than thirty days, therefore, he requested for being allowed to undergo training in the succeeding batch i.e. the 43rd batch. This request was made by him on 13.07.2010. His request was accepted by the competent authority on 31.08.2010 and he was relegated to the next batch i.e. 43rd batch on medical grounds. He stood relieved from basic training of 42nd batch on 31.08.2010. On 01.09.2010, notification was issued for appointment of the selected candidates including the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 42 mentioning his date of joining as 03.06.2010 that is the date when he joined the training with the 42nd batch. In pursuance to the permission granted on 31.08.2010, the respondent No. 1 was called to undergo basic training with the 43rd batch and for reporting on or before 12.10.2011. After reporting, he completed his training successfully with the 43rd batch on 09.11.2012.

8. A seniority list dated 21.05.2013 was circulated containing the names of 43rd batch trainees wherein the respondent No. 1 was placed at Sl. No. 9. Thereafter, a gradation list dated