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

2023 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1577

1

OA No.3107/2018

Item No.39

CT-V

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

OA No.3107/2018

This the 20thday of February, 2023

HON’BLE MR. ANAND MATHUR, MEMBER (A)

HON’BLE Mr. MANISH GARG, MEMBER(J)

Ravinder Kumar

S/o Sh. Vijay Pal Singh

R/o Village Hadauli, Post Sisauli

Distt.Muzaffar Nagar

Uttar Pradesh – 251319.

Aged about 51 years, Group „C‟

...Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)

Vs.

1.

Commissioner of Police

PHQ, MSO Building

IP Estate, New Delhi.

2.

Principal, Police Training College

Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi.

...Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Yash Aggarwal for Ms. Sarita Agarwal)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J)

The facts of the present case as highlighted by the

learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant

was

appointed

as

Constable

in

Delhi

Police

on

01.03.1993. After more than 20 years of service, he

2

applied for voluntary retirement which was accepted on

27.02.2014. The applicant was retired on 01.03.2014.

The applicant vide his application dated 30.03.2014

requested for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement

which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated

17.07.2014. The applicant again vide his applicant

dated 21.07.2014 made a request for his re-employment

under

Rule

29

of

Delhi

Police

(Appointment

&

Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The said request was

rejected

by

the

respondents

vide

order

dated

21.04.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed OA

No.1992/2015 before this Tribunal. The said OA was

disposed of directing the respondents to consider the

case of the applicant in light of Rule 29 of Delhi Police

Rules, 1980. The respondents considered the case of

the applicant under the said Rule but the applicant was

found medically unfit for re-employment. Hence, the

present OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) Quash and set aside the impugned

orders/actions of the respondents placed at

Annexure A/1, A/2 and A/3 (to the extent of

illegal

clauses

contained

therein)

dated

01/08/2018,

25/06/2018

and

28/12/2017

respectively and

3

(b) Direct the respondents to re-employ the

applicant forthwith.”

The applicant challenges the Impugned Order and

makes a submission on following counts:

(i)

The Medical Rules which were amended during the

course of his service could not have been applied to the

applicant. The applicant was a colour blind at the time

of his initial appointment. It is well known that colour

blindness is by birth and was not a medical standard for

disqualification.

The

said

amended

rules

dated

25.06.2010 are reproduced as under:-

“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(a) of Sub-section (2) of section 147 of the

Delhi Police Ac, 1978 (34 of 1978), the

Administrator of the National Capital Territory

of Delhi is pleased to make the following rules

further to amend the Delhi Police (Appointment

and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, namely:-

Short title and commencement:(1)These rules

be called the Delhi Police (appointment and

Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2010.

(2) They shall come into force with effect from

the date of their publication in Delhi Gazette.

Amendment in Appendix to Rule 24 – In the

Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment)

Rules 1980, in the Appendix annexed thereto,

in clause (a), in sub-clause(i), after the words

„without glasses‟, the words shall be free from

colour blindness”, shall be inserted.”

4

3.

He further argues that the said amendment is

unconstitutional and no-nest in the eyes of law inasmuch

as the said amended rules were never placed before the

Parliament as mandated under Section 148 of The Delhi

Police Act, 1978 which reads as under:-

“(1) Every rule and regulation made under this Act shall

be made by notification in the Official Gazette.

(2) Every rule and regulation made under this Act shall

be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each

House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total

period of thirty days which may be comprised in one

session or in two or more successive sessions, and if,

before the expiry of the session immediately following

the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both

Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or

regulation, as the case may be, or both Houses agree

that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule

or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such

modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be;

so, however, that any such modification or annulment

shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything

previously done under that rule or regulation.”

4.

He has also placed reliance upon the decision

rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex

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