Delhi High Court
Rahul Tripathi vs Director General Sashastra Seema ... on 23 November, 2015
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 23.11.2015
W.P.(C)10802/2015, CM APPL.27780/2015
RAHUL TRIPATHI ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL
AND ANR ...Respondents
Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
The petitioner challenges an order of 07.05.2014 cancelling his offer
of appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) in the Sashastra
Seema Bal ("SSB").
The facts are that the petitioner appeared in the Common Central
Police Force (Assistant Commandant) Examination of 2010; on account of
his meritorious performance, he was placed in serial no.162 and assigned to
the post of Assistant Commandant (SSB). By an order of appointment dated
03.08.2012, the SSB required him to report to duties between 08.09.2012 &
11.09.2012. The petitioner appears to have sought for an extension of time
by a letter dated 23.08.2012 on the ground of his father‟s illness. This
request was acceded to and the SSB extended the time for his reporting. He
W.P.(C) 10802/2015 Page 1
was now asked by an order to report on or before 11.03.2013 (hereafter
referred to as „first extension‟). Before the extended date, in terms of the
first extension, the petitioner appears to have sought for further time which
was again granted by the SSB through its letter dated 17.12.2013; the
petitioner was granted extensions again up to 27.01.2014 („second
extension‟). Whilst on 20.01.2014, he addressed a letter contending that
since his father was suffering from cardiac problem and is under the medical
treatment in Doon Hospital, Dehradoon, further extension of time should be
granted. This was not acceded to and on 07.05.2014, the petitioner was
intimated that his offer of appointment stood cancelled. It is contended that
the petitioner kept writing to the authorities and was not given any proper
information as to the status of his request made on 20.01.2014. It is further
stated that the petitioner tried to elicit information under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 but without any avail. Learned counsel relies upon
the representation dated 29.04.2014 which is to the following effect: -
"Date: 29th April, 2014
To,
The Inspector General (Pers)
Force Head Quarters (SSB)
East Block-V, R.K. Puram
New Delhi.
Sub: Status of my Joining in SSB as Assistant Commandant.
Madam,
With due respect, it is intimated that I (Rahul Tripathi) am a selected
candidate for the post of Assistant Commandant in Sashastra Seema
Bal.
W.P.(C) 10802/2015 Page 2
On receipt of joining letter in Jan, 2014 I had applied for extension of
one month - 6 month on the ground my father's severe health problem
and after that I did not receive any communication from SSB, which
has dropped me & my family into anxiety.
Therefore it is requested that the latest status of my joining in the
force may be intimated please so that 1can prepare myself
accordingly."
It is contended, therefore, that the order cancelling the petitioner‟s
appointment is arbitrary and illegal.
The factual discussion would reveal that the petitioner was first asked
to report between 08.09.2012 - 11.09.2012. At his request repeated
extensions were granted. The first extension ended on 11.03.2013; and the
second extension ended on 27.01.2014. Though the petitioner has placed on
the record an application dated 20.01.2014 and he now contended that his
enquiry from the SSB yielded no result, the representation made on
29.04.2014 does not mention about any visit to the SSB, he appears to have
proceeded on the assumption that mere issuance of letter seeking extension
was sufficient to relieve him of an obligation to join before the time granted
under the second extension. This Court is conscious of the fact that
recruitment process commenced in 2010 and ended with the declaration of
result and the offer of appointment - made on 03.08.2012. The SSB granted
repeated extensions. The condition for his entry into the SSB was that he
ought to have joined the force within the time granted. The petitioner
sought no less than three extensions - spread out over more than a year.
The SSB‟s action after 27.01.2014 is in the opinion of this Court reasonable
in the circumstances of the case. In the conspectus of the facts, the
W.P.(C) 10802/2015 Page 3
contention that the cancellation of appointment is arbitrary cannot be
accepted. The writ petition lacks merit and is consequently dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 23, 2015
/vikas/
W.P.(C) 10802/2015 Page 4
