Amar Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1085 Del

$~15.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 1138/2016 and CM APPL. 4992-4993/2016
       AMAR PAL SINGH                                   ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate

                         versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                     ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with
                      Mr. Rohan Gupta, Mr. S.S. Rai, Advocates and
                      Mr. V.K. Sharma, DC(Law), RAF/CRPF.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         ORDER

% 11.02.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia for quashing the Signal dated 05.02.2016, whereby he has

been de-inducted from Formed Police Unit ('FPU' in short)

(Male/Female) for deployment in Liberia under UN MIL.

2. It is the stand of the petitioner, who is presently working on the

post of an ASI/Pharmacist in the respondent No.4/CRPF, that he had

applied for being selected as a part of the FPU for deployment in

Liberia under UN MIL and was duly selected in the category of

"Pharmacist" as is reflected from Annexure P-3. Subsequently, when

the petitioner was interviewed by the officers from the UN, he failed to

clear the interview and resultantly, the respondent No.5, whose name

was placed in the reserved list and who had cleared the interview, was

selected to be a part of the FPU.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the interview process

undertaken by the respondents is contrary to the Standing Operating

Procedure prescribed by the UN (Annexure P-4) and therefore, the

results of the interview conducted in respect of the petitioner ought

not to have been taken into consideration for his non-selection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that immediately upon his

de-induction, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated

31.01.2016 to the Director General, CRPF, which is still pending

consideration. He submits that the FPU shall depart for Liberia on

15.02.2016 and the respondents have deliberately failed to reply to

the petitioner only to frustrate his claim.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance

notice, disputes the submission made by the other side that the

interview process was not undertaken at the instance of the

respondents. He submits that the officers from the UN, who had

visited India, had requested for an operational interview and asked for

a list of all officers, Medical officers, Health Inspector, Platoon

Commanders, Section leaders and all other key post holders and it

was in view of the said request that a list was forwarded by the

respondents to the officers of the UN which included the name of the

petitioner (Annexure P-5). It is submitted that the interview process

was also undertaken by the officers from the UN and not by the

respondents. Learned counsel states while the petitioner did not clear

the interview, respondent No.5, who was kept in the reserved list and

had cleared the interview, was selected. Therefore, there are no

malafides that can be attributed to the respondents for the

de-induction of the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the submission made by the counsel for the

petitioner that his representation remains pending at the end of the

respondents for the past 10 days despite there being an urgency in

the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent

No.2/Director General, CRPF to consider the said representation and

convey his decision to the petitioner on or before 13.02.2016. In the

decision taken, the reasons for de-inducting the petitioner in the FPU

2016-17 shall be furnished.

6. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.

DASTI to the counsel for the respondents under the signatures

of the Court Master.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J FEBRUARY 11, 2016 rkb/ap