Vinit Kumar And Ors vs Railway Protection Force
2017 Latest Caselaw 2538 Del

$~26
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                                W.P.(C) 5146/2016
                                           Date of decision : 19th May, 2017
        VINIT KUMAR AND ORS                                  ..... Petitioners
                     Through:             Mr. Lalait Kumar & Mr. Satendra
                                          Singh, Advocate
                               versus

        RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE                   ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. Preet Singh Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

SANJIV KHANNA, J (Oral)

1. The petitioners five in number were allocated to Railways Police Force service upon selection and undergoing training in the year 2010.

2. Other candidates selected in same selection process were appointed or allocated to the 16 railway zones, Railway Police Special Force/Railway Police Force.

3. The petitioners by way of present writ petition filed on 26.05.2016 seek reallocation in terms of Clause 4 (c) of the Standing Order No. 94 dated 27.08.2009 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railway. The said Clause reads as under :

"The Zonal allotment to SI Cadre will be done by DG/RPF after the conclusion of initial training by taking

into account the marks obtained in the Final Examination, vacancies on Zones/RPSF and choice of Cadres."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the recruitment process undertaken in the year 2012 and 2014, the selected candidates after the training were given choice to opt for zone, or force and depending upon vacancies and marks obtained, their choice was accepted. The selection process in the present case was an exception for choice to opt was not given to anyone.

5. The petitioners had earlier filed WP(C) No. 500/2016 with a similar prayer after they had made representations in 2015. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation in the light of Clause 14 (c) of the standing order dated 27.08.2009 and pass a speaking order under intimation to the petitioners.

6. The respondents thereafter had passed the written order dated 26.02.2016, which for the sake of convenience is re-produced in entirety:-

"I have gone through the order dated 22.01.2016, passed by the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in above cited cases, in which direction has been passed for passing speaking order considering the representations of the petitioners in the light of para 14(c) of the Standing Order 94 dated 27.08.2009.

Accordingly, all the petitioners (applicants), named Shri Vinit Kumar, SI/NFR Shri Vishesh Nagar, SI/RPF/ROHA/CR, Shri Sandeep Kumar SI/CIB/HQ/CR, Shri Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, SI/RPF/INTSK/NFR, and

Shri Jai Ram SI/NFR submitted their representations dated 10.08.2015, dated 24.08.2015, dated 24.08.2015, dated 31.05.2015/darted 25.08.2015 and dated 13.08.2015 respectively. I have gone through all the representations submitted by above named applicants, wherein they have requested for transfer to Northern Railway, Northern Railway, Northern Railway, Western Railway Northern Railway respectively considering the provision mentioned at Para 14 (c) of Standing Order-94, issued on 27.08.2009.

On perusal of official records, I find that, the then DG/RPF had taken a conscious decision to allot the Zonal Railways and RPSF, on the basis of merits positions obtained by the SI Cadets after completion of their training in RPF training centers, as going by both merit and choice, vacancies in RPSF, NFR and SR might have remained unfilled.

There were 836 SI Cadets and 1028 vacancies of SI Cadets were to be filled up in 16 railway zones and RPSF. Some of these zones are very popular and some of them are not popular at all. Among most unpopular zones are RPSF, NFR and SR. Going purely by choice, it would have resulted in vacancies in unpopular zones. Therefore, to fill the vacancies in all the zones, proportionally, it was decided to fill the vacancies on the basis of merit going cyclically according to the descending order of their merit (positioning the final examination) vis-a-vis alphabetical order of zonal railways and RPSF. In the process, first 17 candidates have been allotted one each to 17 zonal railway/RPSF and similarly 18th to 34th and so on. Therefore, it is true that candidates having below merit position than that of applicants mentioned in their representations, have got preferred zone, and it is also fact that some candidates having better merit position have been given to less popular zones. Thus, the allotment of zones of the

applicant was done in a transparent manner the year 2010 and there was no anomaly in the process. However, the process is closed at this stage.

As administration was going to take a policy decision for no transfer of RPSF personnel to RPF, which was later issued as Directive-32 dated 18.09.2014; one time opportunity for transfer of existing staff of RPSF to RFPF was given in the year 2014. Accordingly, Sub-Inspector posted at RPSF including the batch mates of the applicant were given an opportunity tom apply for transfer in RPDF vide letter no. 2014-Sec (ABE)TR-6/53, dated 03.09.2014. since the applicants were not allotted, RPSF, the said decision was not applicable to them and they had no right to apply for transfer from their allotted zone to any other zone. The change of cadre from RPSF to RPF was not limited to the batch mates of the applicants only but was made available to SIs of other batches also.

So, the claim of the petitioners that their batch-mates who ranked below them were allotted the zones of their choice, is baseless. It is also a fact that their batch-mates posted in RPSF would have remained in RPSF only, had there not been the new policy introduced in 2014, to provide one time opportunity to opt for RPF zones, and, thereafter, close the system of request transfer from RPSF to RPF zones. The policy was not made for them exclusively but was made for all the SIs and all constables in RPSF of all batches in administrative interest. So, the submission of the petitioners that they have been deprived of their choice posting whereas other SI Cadres of his batch lower in ranks have been given their choice positing, is false and baseless. The transfer of the batch mates of the petitioners have been done in terms of letter no. 2014-Sec(ABE)TR-6/53, dated 03.09.2014 and not in terms of Para 14 (c) of SO-94 as claimed by the petitioners.

As mentioned above, the claim of the petitioners mentioned in last para of the representation, is not acceptable, in view of the fact, that this offer was applicable to SIs serving in RPSF only, and not to SI serving in RPFin zones. In case, the claim of the petitioners is accepted, it would mean denial of this offer to his batch mates in other zones also. Therefore, the claim of the applicants is not sustainable under the rules and, therefore, it is rejected.

The applicants named Shri Vinit Kumar, SI/NFR, Shri Vishesh Nagar, SI/RPF/ROHA/CR; Shri Sandeep Kumar SI/CIB/HQ/CR; Shri Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, SI/RPF/INTSK/NFT; and Shri Jai Ram SI/NFR may be informed accordingly".

7. The order indicates that 836 SI cadets were selected for 1028 vacancies in 16 railway zones and Reserve Police Force. To fill up the vacancies in all zones and the force proportionately, it was decided to fill up vacancies on the basis of merit cyclically in the descending order. In other words, the first 17 selected candidates were appointed to each zonal railway and Reserve Police Force. This exercise was repeated in batches of 17 selectees to fill up the vacancies in all zones/force. The aforesaid zone/force allocation exercise was completed in 2010.

8. In case, the petitioners' wanted to question the aforesaid criteria of allocation, the challenge should have been made immediately. The petitioners have belatedly approached the Court in the year 2016 after making representation in 2015. Re-allocation of zones at this stage after more than 5 or 6 years as a fresh exercise would lead to

administrative chaos and manifold difficulties. 836 SI cadets would have to be re-allocated after calling for option. Each zone being separate for seniority, the seniority position would undergo a change. The promotion, if earned, would require a re-look. We do not think at this belated stage, this exercise should be made and directed. Thus, we refuse to entertain this petition on the ground of delay and laches.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a transfer policy, which permits zonal transfers. It is not the case of the petitioners or the respondents that will not be implementing the transfer policy. The respondents state that upon transfer on request to different zone, the employee goes to the bottom of the seniority list. We do not wish to issue general directions on account of transfer policy and direct large scale transfers, undoing zonal allocations made in 2010. This would again result in chaos and re-writing the transfer policy.

10. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

SANJIV KHANNA JUDGE

C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGE MAY 19, 2017/P