Delhi High Court
Hc/Ro Kajal Mahanta vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 July, 2015
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 21.07.2015
+ W.P.(C) 2638/2014
HC/RO KAJAL MAHANTA ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. N.L. Bareja, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Sh.
Brajesh Kumar G.P. and Ms. Aneeta Goyal,
Advocates, for UOI.
Sh. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer with Sh. B.K. Raut,
Pairvi 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's complaint is that the respondents wrongly cancelled
his appointment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) by order dated
09.01.2014. According to the Central Reserve Police Force Assistant Sub
Inspector (Steno) and Head Constable (Ministerial) Recruitment Rules,
2012, 15% of the cadre is to be filled by Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination ("LDCE") and the balance 85% through direct recruitment.
The eligibility conditions and the categories of employees entitled to appear
in the LDCE are spelt-out in Column 11 of the Schedule to the Rules:
"(i) By selection through Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination,
W.P.(C) 2638/2014 Page 1
From amongst Constable (General Duty), Head Constable
(General Duty), Constable (Daftary) and Constable
(Tradesmen) with five year total regular service in Constable
and/or Head Constable grade(s) and possessing
qualificiations prescribed for direct recruits under column
(7);
(ii) Should be in the medical category "SHAPE-1"; and
(iii) Must have good record of service."
2. The petitioner concededly was Head Constable (Radio Operator) - a
separate and distinct cadre. In a composite recruitment process which sought
to fill LDCE and direct recruit vacancies, the petitioner was permitted to
participate on the basis of a No Objection Certificate ("NOC") granted in
that regard on 10.12.2012. He was declared "selected" in the subsequent
recruitment process which comprised of a test - held in March 2013. Since
he was required to submit a technical resignation, which he did, the CRPF
accepted it with effect from 02.12.2013 and appointed him as Head
Constable (Ministerial) on 02.12.2013. The appointment was later
withdrawn/cancelled by the impugned order. Sh. N.L. Bareja, learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that the NOC issued by the CRPF was a
conscious decision which allowed him to participate in the recruitment
process for LDCE. It was emphasized that having proceeded to uphold the
petitioner's candidature to participate in the process - in which he was
successful and even appointed him to the post after accepting his
resignation, CRPF cannot now turn around and contend that he was
ineligible to participate and get appointed to the LDCE vacancies.
3. This court has considered the materials on the record. The categories
of posts who are entitled to participate in the LDCE process clearly do not
W.P.(C) 2638/2014 Page 2
include Head Constable (Radio Operator) - to which the petitioner
admittedly belongs. The mention of Head Constable (General Duty) and the
omission to include Head Constable (Radio Operator) leads to only one
conclusion, i.e. that the latter are not eligible to participate in the LDCE for
Head Constable (Ministerial). Of course, there is no doubt that the
respondents committed a mistake in permitting the petitioner to appear in the
LDCE and even issued appointment letter. However, that could not have
clothed a petitioner with a right to claim appointment to the post for which
he was ineligible, to begin with. The cancellation of his appointment,
therefore, cannot be characterized as arbitrary or illegal.
4. We notice that the petitioner has been reverted to the original/parent
cadre as Head Constable (Radio Operator). In these circumstances, no relief
is warranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JULY 21, 2015
'ajk'
W.P.(C) 2638/2014 Page 3
