Delhi High Court
U.O.I & Anr. vs R.K. Sharma on 13 April, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 13.04.2012
+ W.P.(C) No. 2042/2012 & CM No. 4432/2012 (stay)
U.O.I & ANR. ... Petitioners
versus
R.K. SHARMA ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Ankur Chhibber
For the Respondent: Mr Rajesh Katyal
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.01.2012 in O.A. No.
3068/2011. The respondent had challenged the order dated 18.04.2011 whereby the ratio
of the quota for promotion to the post of DIG between Area Organizers and
Commandants had been altered from that prescribed under the relevant recruitment rules
being the Sashastra Seema Bal Group 'A' Combatised (General Duty) Officers
Recruitment Rules, 2004.
2. It is an admitted position that as per the existing recruitment rules 19 posts of DIG
were available. Out of these 19 posts 60% were to be through promotion and the
remaining 40% were to be on deputation from IPS. We are here concerned with the
manner in which the 60% quota of promotion is to be distributed amongst the Area
Organizers and Commandants. As per the existing recruitment rules 60% of 19 posts of
DIG translates to 11 posts which are to be filled through promotion. Out of these 11 posts
7 have been earmarked for promotion from Commandants and the remaining 4 posts from
the Area Organizers. In other words, although there is no percentage prescribed as to the
quota for Area Organizers and Commandants, there is distinct ratio of 7:4 between the
Commandants and Area Organizers prescribed in the recruitment rules itself.
3. It so happened that because of administrative reasons there was a requirement for a
greater number of posts, inter alia, of DIGs. As a result of which the number of posts for
DIGs was sought to be increased from 19 to 23 in 2010-2011, 28 in 2011-2012, 33 in
2012-2013, 35 in 2013-2014 and 37 in 2014-2015. It is in this context that the issue of
the extent of quota for Area Organizers and Commandants has arisen.
4. The Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced on the part of both sides
came to the conclusion that the recruitment rules provided for a 7:4 ratio between
Commandants and Area Organizers and that ratio had to be maintained for the increased
number of DIG posts also. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that mere executive
instructions cannot override the recruitment rules.
5. Insofar as the recruitment rules are concerned, we are informed by the petitioner
that there is a proposal for amending the recruitment rules taking into account the increase
in the size of the entire organization as also the relative strengths of Area Organizers and
Commandants. However, the proposed recruitment rules have not yet been put in place.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to rule 10 of the said
recruitment rules. The said rule reads as under:-
"10. Power to relax.- Where the Central Government is of
the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may,
by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing relax any of the
provisions of these rules with respect of any class or category
of persons."
A plain reading of the said rule would indicate that where the Central Government is of
the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or
category of persons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there has been a
relaxation of the rule by the Central Government and the same is reflected in the note
dated 23.06.2011 of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). The said note
reads as under:-
"Department of Personnel & Training
Estt. (RR) Division
Pre-notes of MHA refer.
2. As per the existing RRs for the post of DIG in SSB (
PB-4, GP of `. 8900), the method of recruitment prescribed is
60% by promotion of Departmental Officers and 40% by
deputation of IPS Officers. For promotion, 7 posts are
earmarked for considering promotion of Commandants with 3
years regular service subject to a total of 20 years Group A
Service and 4 posts are earmarked for promotions of Area
Organiser with 3 years regular service subject to a total of 20
years. Group A Service. MHA have indicated that due to
fresh authorization of additional posts in the combatised
system including the post of DIG in SSB, the quota for
promotion of Commandant and Area Organiser to the rank of
DIG has been reviewed in MHA U.O.Note dated 18.4.11, the
same is prescribed as 4 posts by promotion of Area Organizer
and the remaining posts by promotion of Commandants with
the requisite service and eligibility conditions. As the
notification of the revised RRS with the above changes is
likely to take some time, approval of DOPT has been sought
for filling up vacancies in the grade of DIG with revised
distribution of posts on the basis of existing RRs. The
proposal may be considered for approval. MHA may also
expedite the notification of RRs."
We find that the note does not even use the word relaxation and there is no reference to
rule 10 of the said recruitment rules. In fact there are no reasons recorded at all for any
relaxation in terms of rule 10 of the recruitment rules. In any event, the note also
categorically states that as the notification of the revised recruitment rules bringing about
changes was likely to take some time, approval of the DoPT had been sought for filling
up vacancies in the grade of DIG with revised distribution of posts on the basis of
existing recruitment rules. In other words, the intention of the department was also not to
travel beyond the existing recruitment rules. The way we read the existing rules is that
there is a ratio of 7:4 between the Commandants and Area Organizers insofar as
promotion to the post of DIG is concerned. We do not consider the said note to be a
relaxation in terms of rule 10 of the recruitment rules.
7. Consequently, no grounds have been made out for interference with the impugned
order. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 13, 2012
kb
