Amar Singh vs Director General (Central ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 143 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioner joined the CRPF as a Constable in 1968 and during the course of his service with the respondents the petitioner in 1992 by completing 5 years service in the rank of Head Constable was entitled to take SUOCC course for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. The petitioner, however, took this test in October, 1998. The aforesaid course consists fo 3 groups and the petitioner passed group 2 and 3 but failed in group 1. In March, 1999 the petitioner took the final test of group 1. In March, 1999 failed. In October, 1999 a third chance was given to the petitioner to take group 1 test and the petitioner qualified the same on 15.10.1999. The petitioner was informed that he had passed the said course and had been declared qualified.

2. The petitioner was called for his promotional medical on 20.1.2001 and 21.1.2001. He was informed through a wireless order that the approval granted in 1999 was withdrawn and that he was required to take all 3 group tests again. The petitioner made an application through proper channel against the same on 16.2.2001 but the same was rejected on 10.4.2001. The petitioner thus approached this court thorough the present writ petition.

3. The Standing Order No. 6/99 deals with the eligibility condition for promotion of such candidates. The relevant Clause 2 is as under:-

"2. Failure in any group of subjects will be treated as failure in that group only and such candidates may be re-tested in that group of subject during the final test of next course.

However, failure in 2 groups of subjects will be treated as failure in the whole course and such candidates would be required to undergo the whole course again. The entire syllabus has been divided into 3 groups i.e., Group I consisting of theory, Group II consisting of ground tests and Group III relating to field subjects."

4. In view of the aforesaid if a person fails only in one of the groups then he is entitled to a second chance. However, the eligibility conditions of the same Standing Order also has Clause 5 which states:

"not more than three chances shall be admissible."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus contends that since the petitioner had passed two groups in the first instance he was rightly given a second opportunity for the remaining one group which he availed of. The petitioner filed and was thus granted third opportunity in view of the above Clause 5.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that though in total 3 opportunities are to be given the permission to appear only in one group on having passed in the remaining group would be available only in "next course" as stipulated in Clause 2 and would not be available for a third opportunity. Thus it is contended that in case of the third opportunity the petitioner has to take all the groups as communicated vide the telex message on 21.1.2001.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. A reading of Clause 2 and 5 does not prescribe any restriction on the third chance. Clause 5 states that not more than 3 chances shall be admissible. Admittedly the petitioner has cleared the exam in third chance. Clause 2 also states that failure in one group and passing in two groups would provide another opportunity to the candidate. The expression "next course" thus has to be read with Clause 5 and in view thereof the petitioner cleared the exams within the stipulated chances.

8. The matter also does not rest at this. Admittedly, the respondents had declared the petitioner passed and qualified as far as back as in October, 1999. It is only when the petitioner went for his medical in January, 2001 that this decision was sought to be reversed after more than 15 months on the ground that it was a mistake. A reading of the rule coupled with the conduct of the respondent cannot result in a situation to deny the petitioner the benefit of having cleared the exam and to restart the whole process again.

9. In view of the aforesaid a writ of mandamus is issued quashing the decision communicated on 21.1.2001 and the petitioner be promoted to the post of SI in pursuance to his having passed the SUOCC course in October, 1999 subject to his clearance of medical which was not carried out at the last stage. The petitioner is also entitled to all consequential benefits of seniority and emoluments. The writ petition is allowed in above terms and parties are left to bear their own costs.