Ramanand v. UOI & Ors

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

¶1The petitioner joined service under CRPF as a Constable and earned promotion to the rank of a Head Constable with further promotion to the rank of a Sub Inspector on 6.7.2003. The grievance of the petitioner is of not being promoted to the post of Inspector on account of the relevant service rule mandating that for being considered for promotion to the rank of Inspector, Sub Inspectors must have rendered two years' service in a duty battalion.

¶2Today, we have pronounced a decision in a batch

of writ petitions, lead matter being WP(C) No.21900/2005 'Ashok Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.', in which decision we have considered the issue pertaining to promotion to the rank of Inspector under CRPF.

¶3Learned counsel for the parties state that the instant petition may be disposed of holding that the mandamus issued in our decision dated

27.10.2009 disposing of WP(C) No.21900/2005 and the connected petitions may be treated as a mandamus in the instant petition as well.

¶4Ordered accordingly.

¶5The writ petition stands disposed of directing that the mandamus issued in para 38 of our decision dated

27.10.2009 disposing of WP(C) No.21900/2005 shall be treated as a mandamus issued in the instant petition also.

¶6No costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J. October 27, 2009 dk

i.18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27th October, 2009 + W.P.(C) 2132/2008 RAMANAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Farukh Rashid, Advocate. versus U.O.I & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Geeta Sharma and Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.