Charan Singh vs Uoi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4964 Del

$~9
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Decision: August 23, 2012

+                       W.P.(C) 4445/2012

      CHARAN SINGH                            ..... Petitioner
               Represented by:Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate.

                  versus

      UOI & ORS                                 .....Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate and
                                  Mr.Ranjan Mishra, Advocate for
                                  R-1 to R-4.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.10485/2012 Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

WP(C) No.4445/2012

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner joined ITBP as a SI/Pharmacist on June 26, 1995 and was promoted to the post of Inspector on August 09, 2011.

3. Name of the petitioner was included for selection and pre-induction training, for being deputed in a mission abroad and in terms thereof the petitioner joined the training camp on May 21, 2012, but was disappointed when a message was sent on June 01, 2012 to the training camp requiring petitioner's training to be discontinued, and the reason thereof is that the

petitioner has not rendered service as an Inspector for four years.

4. Representations sent by the petitioner have been negated.

5. It is not in dispute that as per Annexure P-8, the composition of the Force personnel to be trained and deputed abroad, consisting of 135 Force personnel includes one officer from the cadre of Pharmacists. The nomenclature reads: SO/Pharmacy.

6. We highlight that the said one person need not be an SI/Pharmacist or an Inspector/Pharmacist.

7. We find it strange that the promotion of the petitioner is coming in his way. What we mean is that if the petitioner was not promoted as an Inspector, having rendered much more than 4 years' service as a Sub-Inspector, he was eligible for a foreign posting. The good fortune of promotion is denying him the said benefit.

8. That apart, learned counsel for the respondent states that the requirement of the policy is that the person should have rendered 4 years' service in the grade and thus would urge that the petitioner has not rendered 4 years' service in the grade of an Inspector, but would concede that the petitioner would have been sent to the foreign assignment if he had not earned a promotion because as a Sub-Inspector the petitioner had rendered more than 4 years service.

9. We highlight that one post for foreign posting is described as SO/Pharmacy and not as a Sub-Inspector or an Inspector Pharmacy. In other words, the policy has to be read that as a Pharmacist, be it as an Inspector or a Sub-Inspector, 4 years' service has to be rendered.

10. We dispose of the writ petition quashing the impugned decision to recall the foreign posting assignment for which petitioner was empanelled but subsequently de-panelled on account of his being promoted.

11. Respondents are directed to continue with the training of the petitioner.

12. No costs.

CMs No.9220/2012 & 10486/2012 Since the writ petition stands disposed of instant applications seeking interim relief are disposed of as infructuous.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

AUGUST 23, 2012 dk