Delhi High Court
Vishant vs Uoi And Ors on 25 October, 2010
Author: Gita Mittal
19
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.6672/2010
Date of Decision : 25th October, 2010
%
VISHANT ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. for
Mr. Ashwini Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents
in denying him the consideration for promotion from the post of
Inspector to Assistant Commandant with the Central Reserve
Police Force ('CRPF' hereafter) by way of the present writ
petition. His promotion was not granted on the ground that the
petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of two
years field service (Battalion duty).
The petitioner is seeking a mandamus to the respondents
to waive the said condition and consider him for such
promotion.
2. In support of the writ petition, reliance has been placed
by the petitioner on the judgment dated 27th October, 2009
rendered in WP(C)No.21900/2005 Ashok Kumar vs. Union
of India and Ors. as well as connected writ petitions which
raise an identical issue in the context of personnel who were
employed by the Border Security Force as well as the Central
Reserve Police Force.
3. Mr. Ashwini Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has handed over a copy of a signal dated 26th
August, 2010 which we have taken on record whereby the
respondents have been informed that no counter affidavit is
required to be filed in the instant writ petitions for the reason
that the petitioner would be covered by the aforenoticed
judicial precedent.
4. Just as in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India
(Supra), there is no dispute herein also to the contention of the
petitioner that he was not responsible in any manner for his
postings. We find force in the submission of the petitioner that
it was for the respondents to have taken appropriate steps for
issuing the posting orders to duty battalions in case such
service was to be considered essential for promotions.
5. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot be denied
promotion for the reason that he has not served in the field
positions.
6. The petitioner has also drawn our attention to the power
available with the competent authority under the rules for
relaxing/waiving the requirement of two years service in the
duty battalion. Such power has been exercised and the
condition already relaxed in respect of the identically situated
persons by the respondents.
In view of the above, it is directed as follows:-
(i) The decision of the Central Government declining to
relax the eligibility condition of two years service in
duty battalion for promotion of the petitioner to the
post of Assistant Commandant under the CRPF shall
stand quashed.
(ii) A direction is issued to the Central Government to
reconsider the case of the petitioner, after the
aforenoticed relaxation, and to pass appropriate
orders, if the decision is taken in his favour, for
promotion with effect from the date persons
immediately junior to the petitioner were promoted.
In such eventuality, the petitioner would be entitled
to all consequential benefits including seniority, pay
fixation and arrears of pay.
(iv) The case of the petitioner shall be forwarded by the
competent authority to the Ministry of Home Affairs
positively within a period of four weeks from today.
The consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs
shall be communicated to the petitioner within eight
weeks thereafter.
This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
Dasti under signature of court master.
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
OCTOBER 25, 2010
mk
