Delhi High Court
Rabindra Jha vs Union Of India & Anr. on 22 July, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: July 22, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 1255/2011
RABINDRA JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Amrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate with
Mr.A.K.Singh, Director (Personnel),
Ministry of Home Affairs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. We put on record our pain and anguish at the manner
in which officers of the Ministry of Home Affairs have dealt with
the matter.
2. We have perused the File No.C-
17011/4/2011/CC/Pers./BSF in which various notings have been
made and indeed would highlight that the same reflects the
usual bureaucratic answers. To the question: "Where does Ram
live"? The bureaucratic answer: "Opposite Shyam‟s house". To
the question: "Where does Shyam live?", the bureaucrat
answer: "Opposite Ram‟s house" is to be found. Frustrated; and
putting the question: "Where do Ram and Shyam live"? The
bureaucrat answer: "Opposite each other" is to be found.
3. This is the way notes have been penned.
4. The issue at hand is short. The notified recruitment
rules to the post of Asstt.Commandant under BSF envisage 50%
posts to be filled up by direct recruitment, 33% by promotion
from amongst the eligible Inspectors and the remaining 17% by
way of a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).
5. We highlight that the recruitment rules contemplate
a „Limited Departmental Competitive Examination‟ and not a
„Limited Departmental Qualifying Examination‟.
6. In spite of the fact that the standing order prescribing
operating procedure for selection of Asstt.Commandants, vide
para 11 thereof, clearly stipulated: "Personnel recruited through
LDCE will be treated as part of promotion quota and their
seniority will be with reference to the date of selection as per
DOP&T OM No.22011/5/76/Estt. dated 24.6.78, the inter-se-
seniority will be as per their position in the merit list of LDCE",
the notings in the file continue to be penned, ad-nauseam.
7. The petitioner, Rabindra Jha, who has cleared the
LDCE, is praying for a very simple thing to be done. He is not
wanting any inter-se seniority to be re-worked out vis-à-vis
direct recruits and promotees who entered the service on the
50% and 33% quota respectively. He wants inter-se seniority
within the 17% quota of Asstt.Commandants to be worked out
with reference to their merit position obtained at the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination.
8. In spite of the standing procedures, vide para 11,
recording so clearly as above noted and notwithstanding law
being clear: Where promotion is effected on a Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination, it is the inter-se merit
obtained at the competitive examination which determined the
seniority as against a Limited Departmental Qualifying
Examination, where inter-se seniority, post qualifying at the
examination, is with reference to the seniority in the previous
post; the department is just going round and round in circles.
9. Good governance tells us that legitimate demands
and requests of junior staff, if not redressed within reasonable
time breeds disgruntlement and the efficiency of the staff is lost.
In matters of public employment, a disgruntled civil servant or a
disgruntled member of a para-military force would not perform
to his full potential if nobody listens and this impairs the public
interest.
10. We are constrained to pen down that each week, we
are coming across at least 3 matters, where in spite of law or
the legal position being crystal clear, as in the instant case, the
bureaucrat continues to answer the questions with reference to
the residence of Ram and Shyam, as highlighted by us herein-
above.
11. We would be failing to note that the noting file shows
that each and every department of BSF has supported the case
of the petitioner but at the Ministry of Home Affairs, all kinds of
vague queries are being raised by way of notes. We are also
constrained to note that there are notings to the effect as to in
what manner the quota has to be rotated between LDCE
promotees, direct appointees and quota promotees. This is not
the issue which the petitioner is raising. We highlight once
again that the roster vacancy rotation with reference to 33%
promotee quota, 50% direct recruitment quota and 17% LDCE
promotion quota, is not being debated upon by the petitioner.
He simply says that those who clear the LDCE would inter-se
rank in merit as per the marks obtained at the competitive
examination and needless to state thereafter these persons
would be filled in the slots identified on the rota-quota principle
where 3 streams i.e. direct recruits, LDCE promotees and quota
promotees would find their slots.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of directing the
respondents to re-draw the seniority of Assistant Commandants
and while so doing would assign seniority to the petitioner within
the LDCE quota as per his merit position and thereafter applying
the rota-quota rule, the seniority of Asstt.Commandants would
be prepared.
13. The petitioner is entitled to costs in sum of `11,000/-,
which we direct shall be borne by the Ministry of Home Affairs
and not the BSF.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 22, 2011 SUNIL GAUR, J.
dk
