Delhi High Court
Nizamuddin vs Union Of India And Ors on 30 August, 2012
Author: Gita Mittal
4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7371/2011 and CM No.16705/2011
% Date of decision: 30th August, 2012
NIZAMUDDIN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Suresh Chand, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv. for
Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 7371/2011
1. This writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents to
confirm/regularize the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector
(Executive), RPSF with immediate effect with his seniority and also a
direction to the respondents to frame a policy for
confirmation/regularization of the employees promoted on ad-hoc
basis in a time bound manner.
2. The petitioner who had joined the RPSF as a constable in 1984
was promoted by an order passed on 26th January, 2009 to the post of
Sub-Inspector (Executive) on ad-hoc basis till a regular selection is
held. The order clearly stated that the same did not confer any right
upon the employee to claim seniority or other benefits of regular
promotion. The initial appointment for a period of 90 days was
extendable for another 90 days after a break of one day. In this
background, on 26th January, 2009, the petitioner and others so
promoted on ad-hoc basis were restored to their substantive
appointments as Assistant Sub-Inspector. After a break of one day,
they were re-promoted on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 18th May,
2009. It has been explained by the respondents, and is not disputed,
that these appointments on ad-hoc basis were only as a stop gap
measure keeping in view the large number of vacancies in the rank of
Sub-Inspector/Executive.
3. The respondents thereafter conducted regular selections for
promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector in accordance with Rule 70 of
the RPF Rules, 1987. The three selection processes with which the
instant writ petition is concerned are detailed in the counter affidavit
as follows:-
(i) Selection held to fill up 65 vacancies w.e.f.
05.09.09 to 09.09.09, but the petitioner failed to qualify
in written test & outdoor test.
(ii) Section held to fill up 19 vacancies on 06.09.10 to
07.09.10: The petitioner though secured qualifying marks
in the selection, but failed to figure in the panel as he was
lower down in the seniority of passed candidates i.e. he
was at Sl.No.23 whereas vacancies were 19.
(iii) Selection held on 28/29.06.2011 to fill up 69
vacancies (UR:57, SC:4 ST:8), but the petitioner failed
even to secure qualifying marks in this selection.
4. It is undisputed that the petitioner accepted the action of the
respondents and each time participated in the selection process but
had failed to qualify in the aforenoticed three attempts against the
notified vacancies. It has further been explained that the notification
dated 21st July, 2009 notified the vacancies which had been
calculated/notified as per the provisions of Rule 70.4 of RPF Rules,
1987 taking into account the existing vacancies and anticipated
vacancies of the next 12 months and 10% of such total vacancies. As
per Rule 70.3, number of candidates called for selection under Rule
71 were required to be three times the number required to be
empanelled.
5. In the selection conducted between 5th to 9th September, 2009,
136 eligible candidates had appeared out of which 48 candidates were
qualified and empanelled and 46 promoted as Sub-Inspector on
regular basis after completion of the pre-promotion course. Two
empanelled candidates retired prior to pre-promotion course. As
noticed above, the petitioner did not qualify in the said selection.
6. The respondents have pointed out that keeping in view the
vacancies which remained unfulfilled, it was decided to hold another
selection for the remaining vacancies after a gap of six months even
though the selection was required to be held on annual basis.
Accordingly, selection of 19 vacancies was held between 9th to 11th
March, 2010. This selection was cancelled due to some procedural
lacunae and was re-conducted between 6th to 7th September, 2010.
The petitioner, though secured qualifying marks, however could not
be empanelled on account of his low position in the merit. Nineteen
candidates who were qualified in the selection were empanelled and
promoted after the pre-promotion course against the 19 vacancies of
Sub-Inspectors.
7. So far as the selection process conducted between 28th/29th
June, 2011 are concerned, a notification dated 10th February, 2011
was issued for filling up 69 vacancies (UR-57; SC-4; and SC-8) of
Sub-Inspector/Executive calculated in terms of Rule 70.4 of RPF
Rules, 1987. In this selection, out of 74 eligible candidates, only 45
candidates appeared and finally 18 Assistant Sub-Inspectors had
cleared the selection and were empanelled. The petitioner
unfortunately failed to qualify in the selection.
8. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
contending that he is entitled to regularization of his appointment
pursuant to the order dated 26th January, 2009 whereby he was
appointed as Sub-Inspector on ad-hoc basis. The above narration
would show that the order dated 26th January, 2009 clearly notified the
petitioner that his appointment was on ad-hoc basis and that the same
confer no rights upon him. It is even otherwise well settled that an
appointment on ad-hoc basis in such circumstances creates no rights
or entitlement to the regularization of the services on the post to which
a person stands so appointed. Even otherwise, the petitioner has
participated in the selection process after being placed in his
substantive post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. The petitioner clearly
accepted the action of the respondents and participated in the selection
process on three occasions but failed to get selected to the said post.
9. We find that the petitioner had no legal right to regularization
and no directions as prayed can be passed. The writ petition is devoid
of legal merit and is hereby dismissed.
CM No.16705/2011
In view of the orders passed in the writ petition, this application
does not survive for adjudication and is hereby dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
AUGUST 30, 2012
aj
