Anand Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER o/o

06.12.2010

¶1The writ petitionerchallengesthe refusal of the respondents to permit him to proceed for the W&T (PP) course or the SUOC course on the ground of his being overage which would disentitle him for promotion to the post of sub-inspector.

¶2Learned counsel for the respondents has also handed over copy of the communicationdated IS'*" September,2010 which has been issued during the pendencyof this writ petitionwherebythe decision has been taken to waive of the age limit of 47 years prescribed for undergoing the W&T (PP) course or SUOC course which was detailed in So-06/1999 r/w DIG Trg. Dte. Signal No.C.IX.152/98-TRg7 dated 8'' February, 1999.

¶3Learned counsel for the respondents has handed over a copy WP (C) No.13954/2009 Page 1 of3 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. of an order issued on 8"^ October, 2010 passed by this court in WP

(C) No.13641/2009 entitled Ram Kanwar Vs. The Commandant & Ors. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioneris entitledto a similartreatment as has been directed by this court which is based on the respondents' communication dated 15"^ of September, 2010 in the said order. The petitioner places reliancealso on the order dated 9'^ November,2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4112/2010 Deshraj vs. UOI & Ors. which is to the same effect.

¶4So far as willingness and eligibility for undertaking the said course is concerned, our attention has been drawn to the communication dated 13"^ March, 2008 (page 41), 23^^^ iviarch, 2009 (page 43) and a communicationdated 27"^ April, 2009 stating that the petitioner's willingness and eligibility for undertaking the course The petitioner's request for age relaxation was recommended by the DIG, Central (MT/ORD) vide a communication dated 2"^ April, 2009. It, therefore, is evident that the only reason or not permitting the petitioner to proceed on the said course was that the age relaxation had been denied. The decision has now been reversed by the respondents themselves and undoubtedly the petitioner would be entitled to the same benefit as was granted to Ram Kanwar and Deshraj (supra). WP (C) No.13954/2009 0^ In view of tlie above, we direct as follows

(i) The respondents shall permit the petitioner to proceed for the next W&T (PP) or any other course without imposition of the age bar which would render him eligible for the promotion. In case the petitioner is otherwise found eligible and entitled to pursue the course, he shall be detailed for the same. The orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of four weeks from today and be communicated to the petitioner.

(ii) Upon completion of the course, the petitioner shall be entitled to the promotion with all consequential reliefs. Appropriate orders in this behalf shall be passed expeditiously and without any delay. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Dasti to parties. DECEMBER 06, 2010 Kr l/VP (C) No. 13954/2009 J.R. MIDHA, J

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)NO.13954/2009 ANAND SINGH & ORS Petitioners Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through : Mr. R.M. Tiwari and Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA