- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 11 August 2020
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 3899/2020
Judgment
ASHA MENON, J.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 11, 2020 s*..
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11th August, 2020 + HEMANT KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC, Ms. Rupali Kapur, GP and Mr. Prajesh V.S., Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] 1. The petitioner is an Assistant Commandant in the respondent Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and is aggrieved by the fixation of his seniority and has filed the present petition with the following prayers:- JUSTICE ASHA MENON "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing office note dated 04.11.2018 issued by the respondents rejecting the representation of the petitioner; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner with 39th Batch of (Directly Appointed) Assistant Commandant of Central Reserve Police Force; (iii) Pass any such other orders as it may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The brief facts, as are relevant for the disposal of the petition, are that the petitioner had participated successfully in the examination notified in the year 2005 and held by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in the year 2006, for recruitment of Assistant Commandants (Group A) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) including the CRPF and result of which examination was announced in October, 2006. Vide letter dated 15th December, 2007 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was offered appointment as Assistant Commandant in the 39th Batch of the CRPF and was asked to report for basic training at the CRPF Academy, Kadarpur, Gurgaon (Haryana) on or before 15th January, 2008 and informed that "if no reply is received or you fail to report for training by the prescribed date, the offer of appointment shall be treated as cancelled". 3. The petitioner, by communication dated 10th January, 2008 conveyed his acceptance of the offer for recruitment but stated "due to some private and domestic reasons, which is too important for myself and family, I am unable to join in commencing batch" and requested "….please give me extension to join after coming batches of DAGOS" (Directly Appointed Gazetted Officers). The respondents vide letter dated 18th February, 2008 (Annexure P-4) informed the petitioner that his request for extension of time had been accepted and he had been granted permission to enable him to join till the commencement of the basic training of the next batch of DAGOs. The letter aforesaid also recorded that his assigned seniority would be at the bottom of the next batch with which he would undergo training. The petitioner was further informed that the date of commencement of training will be communicated to him as and when finalized. 4. The petitioner joined the basic training course with the 40th Batch and on successful completion thereof was issued an appointment letter dated 23rd March, 2009 (Annexure P-5). His name was placed at Serial No.78, at the bottom of the 40th Batch, as had been duly informed to him on 18th February, 2008. It was only on 17th May, 2014 that he submitted a representation against his placement, which was rejected on 16th June, 2014 pointing out that it had been done in accordance with the OM dated 6th June, 1978. The petitioner also submitted another representation on 18th September, 2018, which was also rejected on 4th November, 2018 (Annexures P-6 to P-9). 5. The OM dated 6th June, 1978 lays down the following procedure for determination of seniority when the candidates recommended for appointment take long time to join or where the offers of appointment have been revived after they have been cancelled: "(i) In the offers of appointment issued by different Ministries/Departments, it should be clearly indicated that the offer would lapse if the candidates did not join within a specified period not exceeding two or three months. (ii) If
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.