Delhi High Court
Padmanabh Upadhyay vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 2017
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) 436/2017
Date of decision : 27th July, 2017
PADMANABH UPADHYAY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
Mr.A.K.Dubey, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with
Mr.Sri Ram Krishna, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
The writ petitioner Padmanabh Upadhyay, prays for
quashing of the order dated 2nd May, 2016 and seeks restoration
of offer of appointment and directions to the respondents to
appoint him as Assistant Commandant (DE), in the Border
Security Force (BSF).
2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner had appeared
in the Central Armed Police Force (Assistant Commandant)
Exam 2012, for the post of Assistant Commandant (DE). On
being successful, vide offer of appointment letter dated 11th
December, 2014, he was directed to report to the Director, BSF
WP(C) 436/2017 Page 1
Academy at Tekanpur, Gwalior (MP) on 19th January, 2015
failing which the offer of appointment would automatically
stand cancelled.
3. The petitioner vide letter dated 16th January, 2015, sought
a three months' extension on the ground of his father's sickness,
who it was stated was suffering from chronic liver disease and
severe arthritis in both knees for which knee replacement
surgery was advised.
4. The request for extension of time was partly allowed vide
communication dated 11th February, 2015 directing the
petitioner to report to the Director of Academy by 23.02.2015
failing which the offer of appointment would lapse. Reliance
was placed on the Border Security Force Group-A (General
Duty Officers), Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2012 which
are reproduced below:-
"(i) An offer of appointment issued by the Ministry
or Departmental (sinc.)shall be valid for 'FOUR
WEEKS' from the date of joining as mentioned in the
offer of appointment after which offer would lapse
automatically.
(ii) If, however, within the specified period of
'FOUR WEEKS', a request is received from the
candidate for extension of time and after due
consideration by the Ministry he may be granted
extension for a maximum period of 'TWO WEEKS' in
addition to the 'FOUR WEEKS' if facts and
circumstances deem it necessary to do so. The
WP(C) 436/2017 Page 2
candidates who join within a period of 'SIX WEEKS'
shall have their seniority fixed as per sub-rule (3) (b).
(iii) If even after the extension (s) granted by the
Ministry, a candidate does not report within the
stipulated time (which shall not exceed a period of six
weeks), the offer of appointment shall lapse
automatically."
5. The petitioner failed to avail the opportunity and sought
for another extension vide letter dated 21st February, 2015, in
view of his family condition and personal injury.
6. As extension beyond six weeks was impermissible under
the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner was directed to report to
the Director of Academy on or before 2nd March, 2015, vide
communication dated 26.02.2015, failing which his offer of
appointment would stand cancelled and no further
representation would be entertained.
7. Yet again, the petitioner did not join the Academy and
wrote another letter dated 2nd March, 2015 stating, inter alia,
that he had been advised by doctors to take strict bed rest and
hence could not report within the stipulated time.
8. In response, the respondents vide letter dated 12th March,
2015, informed the petitioner that the offer of appointment had
already lapsed and his candidature consequently stood
cancelled.
WP(C) 436/2017 Page 3
9. After waiting for one year, the petitioner wrote the letter
dated 22nd April, 2016, seeking reinstatement in service stating
that due to his illness and unavoidable family circumstances he
was unable to report to the Academy by the stipulated dates.
10. His request for reinstatement was rejected vide impugned
letter dated 2nd May, 2016, which has now been challenged
before us.
11. The present writ petition was preferred by the petitioner
in this Court on 19th October, 2016. The writ petition was
returned under office objections and was re-filed on 16th
January, 2017.
12. Looking at the nature of defaults, extensions granted on
two occasions, and the failure to report after long lapse of time,
we are not inclined to interfere or grant any relief to the
petitioner who seeks employment in the BSF which is an
Armed Paramilitary Force. Indulgence is unwarranted and
unjustified. The Rules have to be strictly complied with.
13. The writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JULY 27, 2017
RN
WP(C) 436/2017 Page 4
