Ramanand vs U.O.I & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4351 Del

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.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The 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.

2. Today, 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.

3. Learned 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.

4. Ordered accordingly.

5. The 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.

6. No costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

October 27, 2009 dk