Vishant v. UOI and Ors

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

¶1The petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents in denying him the consideration for promotion from the post of Inspector to Assistant Commandant with the Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF' hereafter) by way of the present writ petition. His promotion was not granted on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of two years field service (Battalion duty). The petitioner is seeking a mandamus to the respondents to waive the said condition and consider him for such promotion.

¶2In support of the writ petition, reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgment dated 27th October, 2009 rendered in WP(C)No.21900/2005 Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. as well as connected writ petitions which raise an identical issue in the context of personnel who were employed by the Border Security Force as well as the Central Reserve Police Force.

¶3Mr. Ashwini Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has handed over a copy of a signal dated 26th August, 2010 which we have taken on record whereby the respondents have been informed that no counter affidavit is required to be filed in the instant writ petitions for the reason that the petitioner would be covered by the aforenoticed judicial precedent.

¶4Just as in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India (Supra), there is no dispute herein also to the contention of the petitioner that he was not responsible in any manner for his postings. We find force in the submission of the petitioner that it was for the respondents to have taken appropriate steps for issuing the posting orders to duty battalions in case such service was to be considered essential for promotions.

¶5Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion for the reason that he has not served in the field positions.

¶6The petitioner has also drawn our attention to the power available with the competent authority under the rules for relaxing/waiving the requirement of two years service in the duty battalion. Such power has been exercised and the condition already relaxed in respect of the identically situated persons by the respondents.

In view of the above, it is directed as follows:-

(i) The decision of the Central Government declining to relax the eligibility condition of two years service in duty battalion for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Commandant under the CRPF shall stand quashed.

(ii) A direction is issued to the Central Government to reconsider the case of the petitioner, after the aforenoticed relaxation, and to pass appropriate orders, if the decision is taken in his favour, for promotion with effect from the date persons immediately junior to the petitioner were promoted. In such eventuality, the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation and arrears of pay.

(iv) The case of the petitioner shall be forwarded by the competent authority to the Ministry of Home Affairs positively within a period of four weeks from today. The consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs shall be communicated to the petitioner within eight

weeks thereafter.

This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

Dasti under signature of court master.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J

OCTOBER 25, 2010 mk

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)No.6672/2010 Date of Decision : 25th October, 2010 % VISHANT ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. for Mr. Ashwini Bhardwaj, Adv. CORAM :- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?