Sh.Anup Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3719 Del

      *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Date of Decision: 01.06.2012

+                        W.P.(C) No.2492/2012

Sh.Anup Kumar Gupta                            ...        Petitioner

                                 Versus

Union of India & Ors.                           ...       Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Sanjeev
                     Chaswal and Ms.Tinu Bajwa.
For Respondents : Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Central Govt. Standing
                     Counsel with Lt.Commander Varun Singh (Navy).

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

ANIL KUMAR, J.

The petitioner joined the Indian Navy as a Sailor in the year 2003

and is now working as Leading Store Assistant. Admittedly, he has put

in 9 years of service.

In October, 2010 while he was posted at INS, Kardip in Andaman

& Nicobar Islands he applied for being considered for the post of

Assistant Commandant in Central Police Force Organisations, the

examinations for which were held in October, 2010. Ultimately, the

petitioner was declared successful and was offered appointment as an

Assistant Commandant in the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force.

Consequent upon this offer, the petitioner applied for clearance

for appearing in the examination from the Indian Navy. His application

has been rejected by the Indian Navy on the sole ground that he had

failed to apply at the proper time and at the right stage and was,

therefore, not in accordance with the Navy's declared policy on the

subject. According to the respondents, the petitioner was obliged to

apply for permission to appear in the selection examination in advance,

which he had failed to do. This is the only ground on which the

petitioner's application for clearance for appearing in the examination

from the Indian Navy had been rejected.

In the same context the Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of

Defence (Navy), Directorate of Manpower Planning and Recruitment had

also issued a recommendation on 19th March, 2012 recommending ex-

post facto approval to be granted to the petitioner for appearing in the

Combined Police Force (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2010. In

that recommendation it was also mentioned that as a matter of fact

Commanding Officer, INS India had also granted approval to the

petitioner vide his communication dated 29th August, 2011, to appear

for the same Combined Police Forces Examination to be conducted for

the next year i.e 2011. Despite this recommendation of Integrated

Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy), Directorate of Manpower

Planning and Recruitment; the Commodore Bureau of Sailors declined

to grant ex post facto approval for the CPF (AC) Examination, 2010 on

28th March, 2012.

After some arguments, and keeping in view the decision of this

Court in the case of Md.Shahbaz Alam v. Union of India & Ors, W.P (C)

No.7353/2011 decided on 11th January, 2012 which is a recent

decision by this Court in connection with a similar policy of the Air

Force and in which decision, an earlier decision of this Court in W.P(C)

No.9088/2008 titled Cpl N.K.Jakhar v. Union of India & Ors, decided

on 21st October, 2009, and some other cases as well, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents submits that notwithstanding the

position taken by the Commodore Bureau of Sailors, having earlier

declined the grant of ex post facto approval, the respondents would now

duly consider the case of the petitioner for discharge from the Indian

Navy keeping in view the parameters for discharge as set down in the

relevant policy without in any way being influenced by the fact that the

petitioner had not applied for approval to sit for the CPF (AC)

Examination, 2010 in advance or that ex post facto approval in this

behalf has since been declined. He submits that the matter will be

considered at its own merits keeping also in view, inter-alia, the fact

that due permission was in fact given to the petitioner to appear in the

next CPF (AC) Examination, 2011 by the respondents. The statement of

respondents counsel is accepted by this Court.

Mr.Bajaj, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the

respondents who also appears for the Director General, Indo Tibetan

Border Police Force, i.e, respondent No.4 herein, submits that the next

training course for all those who had qualified in the CPF (AC)

Examination, 2010 and were offered appointments, including the

petitioner, is to commence on 11th June, 2012.

In the circumstances and on instructions from Lt.Commander

Varun Singh Mr.Bajaj further states that the respondents shall decide

the question of the discharge of the petitioner from the Indian Navy as

aforesaid within one week from today. The outcome thereof shall be

duly communicated to the petitioner with a copy to his counsel as well,

within two days thereafter.

In case the discharge as prayed for by the petitioner is granted by

the respondents, the petitioner shall be permitted to join the ITBP

training course which is scheduled for commencement on 11th June,

2012 at any time within 10 days of receiving such intimation and no

objection for late joining shall be raised in this behalf by respondent

No.4.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

CM No.5332/2012

Since the main petition has been disposed of, this application

does not survive.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the

Court Master to learned counsel for the parties.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JUNE 01, 2012                         SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
'k'