Delhi High Court
Lalita Kumari vs Union Of India & Ors. on 17 July, 2015
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on : 17.07.2015
+ W.P.(C) 6704/2015
LALITA KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kunwar Arish Ali, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate
Mr.S.S.Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner was not allowed to appear in the examination
conducted for appointment to the post of ASI (Ministerial) in the Central
Reserved Police Force (CRPF). The requirements spelt out in the rules were
that the candidate had to possess 3 years service in the cadre of Head
Constable (Ministerial) as on the relevant cut-off date i.e. 31.03.2011. The
petitioner did not possess such eligibility and therefore was not permitted to
participate in the examination.
2. The petitioner's representation of unfair treatment was considered and
the respondents, in light of a clarification issued on 03.02.2010, were of the
opinion that the petitioner should be permitted the benefits sought by her
with effect from the date or dates her juniors were promoted. As a matter of
W.P.(C) 6704/2015 Page 1
fact, the said juniors had completed three years of qualifying service even
though the petitioner had not. In terms of the clarification of February,
2010, a senior possessing at least half the qualifying period of service could
be permitted to participate in the test. On the basis of these concessions, the
petitioner was subsequently granted the benefit along with seniority.
However, they were denied the arrears. The relevant order granting the
benefits reads as follows:
"2. As per para-18.4.3 under Chapter-54 (Promotion)
of Swamy's Complete Manual on Establishment and
Administration, in such cases pay should be fixed under FR-
27 at the stage it would have reached, had he been
promoted from the date the officer immediately below him
was promoted but no arrears would be admissible. The
seniority of the officer would be determined in the order in
which his name, on review, has been placed in the select list
by DPC.
3. In view of the above rules position, it is clear that in this
type of deferred cases, official will be eligible for pay
fixation/seniority but no arrears would be admissible.
Benefit of pay fixation and seniority has already been given
to your clintess vide Office Order No.E.V.2/2011-Min dated
14/05/2013. But, as per the provision of rule FR-22 she is
not entitled for any back wages/arrears consequent on re-
fixation of pay."
3. We have heard counsels for the petitioner.
4. It is evident in terms of the recruitment rules/policy
that for promotion the candidate should possess three
years' eligibility qualifying service. Clearly, the petitioner had not
completed qualifying service. She was, however, allowed to
compete in the subsequent examination and promoted on the basis of a
clarification which stated that if a senior is not permitted to participate but a
W.P.(C) 6704/2015 Page 2
junior is, he/she would be granted consequential seniority.
5. In the present case, the petitioner does not deny that the others
completed three years qualifying service. The rules only allow those who
complete the prescribed eligible service to compete as a matter of
entitlement. The fact that she was allowed to compete later on the basis of
relaxed standard, in our opinion, does not entitle her to claim arrears of
salary which were denied to her.
6. For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JULY 17, 2015
rb
W.P.(C) 6704/2015 Page 3
