Sanjeev Panwar vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2016 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.03.2012
+       W.P.(C) 1649/2012

SANJEEV PANWAR                                                     ... Petitioner

                                         versus

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS                                     ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr R.V. Sinha with Mr R. N. Singh
For the Respondent           : None

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. By way of this writ petition the order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original

Application 3911/2010 is under challenge. The point raised by the

petitioner is that he ought to be given seniority with effect from 2002 and

not with effect from his actual date of appointment/ joining, which is

11.06.2007.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, in pursuance of the

advertisement published in newspapers on 29.03.2002 and in the

Employment News on 13.04.2002 issued by the respondents, had applied

for the post of Constable Executive (Male) in the Delhi Police under the

OBC category. The petitioner had cleared all the prescribed tests and had

been provisionally selected as Constable Executive (Male) in the Delhi

Police under the OBC category and he had even been offered appointment

on 09.01.2003. However, the petitioner was not permitted to join the

service when he reported, as it was found that the petitioner did not belong

to the OBC category at all. The petitioner claimed that he was a 'Jaat' and

that in Uttar Pradesh it was recognized as an OBC category. However, in

Delhi that caste was not recognized as an OBC. Consequently, the

petitioner had not been permitted to join.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Original Application, being

OA No. 484/2003, before the Tribunal, wherein the petitioner raised

essentially two contentions. The first contention was that he should be

considered as an OBC because the caste 'Jaat' in Uttar Pradesh is

recognized as an OBC and secondly that certain Jaats of Delhi have also

been taken in Delhi Police under the OBC category, as a result of which he

ought not to be discriminated.

4. By an order dated 22.10.2003, the Tribunal rejected the contentions

raised by the petitioner and dismissed the said OA 484/2003.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being WP(C)

15779/2004, before this Court. In that writ petition certain directions were

given on 03.10.2006. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of on

31.10.2006 by the following order:-

"Mr. Rohit Madan has produced in Court letter bearing No. XII-B(75)/06/15253- 54/R.Cell(R-I)/4th Bn.DAP dated 30th October, 2006 informing that respondents have decided to treat the candidature of the petitioner Sanjeev Panwar as an outstanding sportsman by giving age relaxation subject to verification of sports certificates for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police.

This is a case where the petitioner's OBC certificate being from U.P., was not accepted and the petitioner had secured 66% marks being an OBC candidate while the cut off for general category was 57%. In view of the directions given in our order dated 3.10.2006, we are happy to note that the respondents have responded in a constructive manner to the directions given. Let the petitioner produce his certificates with regard to his participating in national level competitions of Kayaking and Canoeing within a week from today for processing his case or appointment.

Writ petition stands disposed of."

6. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an appointment under the general

category and the relevant letter dated 01.12.2006 is as under:-

"MOST IMMEDIATE/OUT AT ONCE

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE: DELHI

Sub: CWP No.15779/04 - Sanjeev Panwar Vs UOI & Ors.-reg.

Reference your office memo. No. 15448/R.cell/4th Bn. DAP dated 06.11.06 and 17883/R.Cell/4th Bn. DAP dated 17.11.06 on the subject cited above.

In compliance to orders dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.15779/2004 Sanjeev Panwar Vs. UOI & Ors., it has been decided to consider the candidature of Sanjeev Panwar for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police by allowing him age relaxation as a general candidate of outstanding sports performance subject to verification of sports certificates and other usual formalities i.e. verification of character and antecedents and medical examination etc. The sports certificates received vide your office memo. under reference are returned herewith, which may kindly be acknowledged.

This may be treated as MOST URGENT.

Sd/-

(H.M. MEENA) DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE:

ESTABLISHMENT:DELHI DCP/4th Bn. DAP Encls: As above.

No. XII/28(48)/04/34810/SIP (PHQ) Dated 1.12.06"

7. After the petitioner joined as a Constable Executive (Male), pursuant

to the said letter of appointment, the petitioner filed OA No. 3911/2010, in

which, he, inter alia, sought a direction that the petitioner be granted

seniority in the order of merit of selection of the year 2002 and also sought

directions for issuance of appropriate consequential orders of seniority, pay

fixation etc., by treating him as a recruit of the year 2002.

8. The only question that arose before the Tribunal in this round of

litigation was whether the petitioner should be granted seniority with effect

from 2002 or with effect from 2007, that is, from the date of his joining on

11.06.2007. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal

as well as before us that since the petitioner was ultimately appointed

against the vacancies which were advertised in 2002, he ought to be given

seniority with effect from 2002 and not from 2007.

9. We do not agree with this contention raised on behalf of the

petitioner. The Tribunal was right in rejecting the petitioner's OA

No. 3911/2010, by virtue of the impugned order dated 04.07.2011, by

holding that the petitioner had not been appointed on the basis of a selection

process pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2002, but that the petitioner

had been granted a concession by the High Court by virtue of the order

dated 31.10.2006. The most crucial aspect of the matter is that had the High

Court not passed the order dated 31.10.2006, the petitioner was not

otherwise eligible for the appointment in terms of the post advertised in

2002 and particularly in respect of the OBC category, in which alone he had

applied. Thus, had it not been for the High Court order, the petitioner would

not have been in employment at all. Now, if we examine the order passed

by the High Court on 31.10.2006, we find that the High Court has granted a

concession to the petitioner by not only directing that his candidature be

treated as against the general category and as an outstanding sportsman, but

by also giving him the benefit of age relaxation. It is only pursuant to these

directions that the petitioner was able to get the appointment as a Constable

Executive (Male) with the Delhi Police. Therefore, the petitioner's

appointment cannot be construed as an appointment pursuant to the

selection process which was initiated by the advertisement of 2002. On the

contrary, the petitioner's appointment was pursuant to the specific directions

given by the High Court by virtue of its order dated 31.10.2006. Since he

was offered appointment pursuant thereto and he joined only on 11.06.2007,

his seniority has to be considered from that date and not from 2002.

10. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision in this regard cannot be

faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V. K. JAIN, J MARCH 23, 2012 SR