Sh.Ravinder Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1644 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          WP(C) No.2021/2010
%
                        Date of Decision: 23.03.2010

Sh.Ravinder Kumar                                  .... Petitioner
                 Through Mr.Karan Chauhan, Advocate

                                 Versus

Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.                               .... Respondents
                  Through     Ms.Jyoti Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be             YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?               NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported              NO
       in the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st June, 2009

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in O.A No.1479/2009 titled Ravinder Kumar v. Government of

NCT of Delhi & Ors dismissing his petition seeking direction to reinstate

the petitioner after he was appointed on compassionate ground and his

appointment was terminated by the order dated 10th July, 2008, 18th

November, 2008 and 1st June, 2009 on petitioner failing to qualify the

basic training.

Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that father of the

petitioner had died on 9th December, 2003 while in service and an

application was filed by petitioner‟s mother for his appointment on

compassionate ground which was allowed in an original application

filed by the petitioner being O.A No.1231/2005 titled Ravinder Kumar v.

Government of NCT of Delhi by the order dated 26th September, 2006

directing the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for

compassionate ground as constable.

After the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the

petitioner, he was appointed as constable. While undergoing basic

training he had to qualify the examination, however, he failed to qualify

the basic training course despite an additional chance given to him and

consequently under Rule 5 of Central Services (Temporary Services)

Rules, 1965 and SO No.16/2008 his services were terminated as he

failed to pass the basic training even after availing additional chance by

order dated 10th July, 2008.

The petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal,

however, relying on the order dated 10th July, 2008 categorically

stipulating that despite availing a second chance the petitioner could

not qualify the basic training, and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to

continue as constable and dismissed the original application filed before

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

petitioner was given just one day notice before he was asked to appear

in "Police and Society".

This however, cannot be disputed that not once but twice the

petitioner was given chance to qualify the examination for the basic

training. Despite an additional chance given to the petitioner he failed

to qualify and now it cannot be contended that adequate time was not

given to the petitioner. Perusal of the original application filed by the

petitioner, it is apparent that adequate time was given to him before he

was asked to appear in the examination was not raised before the

Tribunal rather the plea of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that

since the compassionate appointment was made in order to mitigate the

hardship of the family of the petitioner and since he was recruited after

qualifying the competitive examination, therefore, his appointment was

based solely on the economic condition and his compassionate

appointment is different than the one who is a direct recruit through an

open test. In the circumstances, it was contended that the competent

authority, that is, the Commissioner of Police should have exercised the

discretionary power to relax the condition of passing all the papers of

law which was required to be qualified by the direct recruits.

The entire emphasis of the petitioner, who was appointed on

compassionate ground before the Tribunal, appears to be that

relaxation should have been given to him from qualifying one of the

papers in which he failed despite an additional opportunity given to

him. Though this point has not been agitated before us, yet in the facts

and circumstances it cannot be held that merely because the petitioner

was appointed on a compassionate ground, he will not be entitled to

undergo the basic training and to qualify the examinations after

undergoing the basic training. The petitioner in the circumstances

could not claim relaxation nor the respondents were liable to relax the

basic training qualification even if the appointment of petitioner was on

compassionate ground.

The order of the Tribunal also cannot be faulted or impugned by

the petitioner on the ground now taken by the learned counsel that the

petitioner was not given adequate time before he was asked to appear in

the examination. Such a ground shall not be sustainable at this stage

in the facts and circumstances and in the circumstances we do not find

any such illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal sustaining

the termination order of the respondent on failure of the petitioner to

qualify in the basic examination during the basic training course so as

to necessitate any interference by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition, therefore, is without any merit and it is

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

MARCH 23rd, 2010                             MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
„k‟