Delhi High Court
Const. Rajesh Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 April, 2019
$~1 to 4 & 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 873/2018
CONST. RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Mishra & Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Tiwari, Advocates
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, DC Law &
Mr. Deepak Kumar, SI CRPF
+ W.P.(C) 2407/2018
CONST. RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Ms. Santwana,
Advocates
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, DC Law &
Mr. Deepak Kumar, SI CRPF
+ W.P.(C) 2427/2018
CONST. MUKESH KUMAR BAJIYA ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Vijay Joshi, Sr. Panel counsel ,
Mr. R.M.Tripathi, Mr. Abhimanyu,
W.P.(C) 873/2018 & other connected matters Page 1 of 8
Mr. Abhishek Khanna &
Mr. Soumaya Karmakar,
Advocates for Respondent
No.1/UOI
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, DC Law &
Mr. Deepak Kumar, SI CRPF
+ W.P.(C) 874/2018
CONST. NEMI CHAND AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Mishra & Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Tiwari, Advocates
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, DC Law &
Mr. Deepak Kumar, SI CRPF
+ W.P.(C) 11505/2018
CONST. PRAKASH CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Vijay Joshi & Mr. R.M.Tripathi,
Advocates
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, DC Law &
Mr. Deepak Kumar, SI CRPF
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 01.04.2019
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. These petitions arise from a common set of facts and seek similar reliefs.
They are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The Petitioners are presently Constables (Trade) in the Central Reserve
Police Force (CRPF). Each of them seeks re-musteration as Constable
(Driver) in the CRPF on the strength of the decision dated 28th July, 2017 of
this Court in WP(C) No. 10548/2016 (Constable Karan Singh v. Union of
India). For the sake of convenience, the facts in the lead petition i.e. W.P.
(C) No. 873 of 2018 are discussed in detail.
3. In WP (C) No. 873/2018 there are five Petitioners. These five Petitioners
joined CRPF as Constables (Trade) between 23rd July, 2004 and 17th June,
2011. The Respondents issued Signals whereby the Petitioners' Battalions
were informed that the Driver & Mechanic Course (D & M Course) Sl. No.
34 for being re-mustered as a Driver was being conducted. Nominations for
the course were invited from all the companies.
4. One basic qualification for applying for the D&M course is that the
candidate should be below 30 years of age. It must be mentioned at this
stage each of the Petitioners is an OBC candidate and each was below 30
years of age at the time of applying for re-musteration as Constable (Driver).
This was the age limit for OBC candidates in terms of a standing instruction
No. 3/2011 dated 20th May, 2011.
5. It is stated that each of the five Petitioners in WP(C) No. 873/2018
completed the D & M course successfully on 20th June, 2015. The results
were announced by a signal dated 25th January, 2016. On the ground that
each of these Petitioners would be above 30 years after going the further 44
week's basic training, the Respondents have declined to re-muster them.
6. In WP (C) No. 2407/2018 there are three Petitioners. Each is a Constable
(Trade) in the CRPF and was below 30 years of age at the time of applying
for re-mustering as Constable (Driver). They too successfully completed the
D & M course. Their re-mustering is being denied by the Respondents on
the ground that they would be over 30 years of age when they complete the
44 weeks' basic training.
7. In WP (C) No. 2427/2018 the Petitioner is a Constable in the CRPF.
Although at present he is above 30 years of age at the time of applying for
the D & M course he was below 30 years. In WP (C) No. 874/2018 there are
three Petitioners placed identically as the others. In WP(C) No. 11505/2018
there is one Petitioner. All of them have successfully completed the D&M
Course.
8. The stand of the Respondents in all these matters is more or less the same.
It is pointed out that the Petitioners would have crossed 30 years of age by
the time of completion of training and therefore would not be eligible for
being re-mustered. It is further submitted by the Respondents that after the
notification dated 13th November, 2014 issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs amending the Central Reserve Police Force, Group-C (General
Duty)/Technical cadre (Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2010) the relaxation in
age has been done away with. The earlier age relaxation of three years for
OBC candidates and five years for SC/ST candidates has been replaced by
one uniform norm. The outer age limit is now 30 years irrespective of
whether the candidate is SC/ST or OBC or an open candidate. This change
was upheld by this Court by judgment dated 10 th December, 2018 in WP(C)
No. 1468/2018 (Const Amit Kumar v. Union of India). Consequently, it is
submitted by the Respondents that it is not open to any of these Petitioners
to claim age relaxation.
9.1 The Petitioners in Const Amit Kumar v. Union of India (supra) were all
above 30 years of age even by the time they applied for the D & M course,
which was a pre-requisite for the re-musteration as Constables (Drivers).
However, as far as the decision in Constable Karan Singh v. Union of
India (supra) is concerned, the Petitioner was, just as the Petitioners in the
present petitions, below 30 years when applying for the D & M course. In
that case also it was contended by the Respondents that since the Petitioner
would have crossed the age of 30 years by the time he completed the 44
week's basic training he would be rendered ineligible.
9.2 This Court in Constable Karan Singh v. Union of India (supra) did not
accept that contention. Importantly, this Court took note of the fact that
under 2010 Rules it had been clearly stipulated that "the crucial date for
deciding whether the candidate was overage or within the age limit would be
the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement". Reference was also made
to the basic requirements for being re-mustered as Constable (Drivers). The
first was that they should be below 30 years on the date of applying for the
re-mustering in terms of the note to Column 7 which incidentally was not
deleted or modified by the 2010 Rules as amended in 2014. The second was
that the Constable (Tradesman) should have a driving licence. The third was
that they must successfully qualify the D & M course.
9.3 It was pointed out by this Court in Constable Karan Singh v. Union of
India (supra) that the last requirement viz., the successful completion of the
D & M course related to qualification and not to an upper age limit. It was
noted by the Court that "It is an accepted and admitted case that for a direct
recruit, the age eligibility would be considered as on cut-off date as
mentioned in the advertisement and not when the candidate successfully
completes the basic training or D&M Course." It was accepted by the
Respondents that the direct recruits also have to undergo the D&M Course
for direct recruitment. The Court logically extended the above proposition,
to departmental candidates who underwent the D & M course for being re-
mustered as Constable (Drivers). In other words, "Government servants
entitled to apply as direct recruits and those who apply re-mustering are
treated alike and equally." The Court was of the view that
"It would lead to absurdity if we accept the stand of the
respondents that government servants who are working in other
departments would be eligible if they are less than 30 years of
age as on the cut-off date but the departmental candidates who
are considered for remuster, would be over aged as their age on
the date when they complete the D&M Course or the basic
training is the deciding factor/criteria.
Age eligibility has to be with reference to a fixed point in time.
There should not be any scope of introducing uncertainty on
account Of variable factors. This would bring hardship and
injustice by eliminating some of those who are eligible. We
would prefer an interpretation which ensures clarity and
certainty."
10. The Court sees no reason why the benefit of the judgment of this Court
in Constable Karan Singh v. Union of India (supra) should not be extended
to each of the present Petitioners all of whom were admittedly below 30
years of age on the date they applied for re-mustering as Constable
(Drivers). It did not matter that they may have crossed the age of 30 when
they qualified in the D & M course which is the basic training course. The
44 weeks' course is subsequent to the D & M course. The dates on which
they qualify in these courses might be after they cross 30 years of age.
However, in terms of the legal position explained this Court in Constable
Karan Singh v. Union of India (supra), they will not stand disqualified on
that ground alone.
11. The decision in Constable Amit Kumar v. Union of India (supra) was
concerned with the validity of the removal of age relaxation. That is not an
issue that arises in the present case since none of the Petitioners here are
claiming any such age relaxation. At the time of applying for the D&M
course, whether the 34th or 35th course, each of them was admittedly below
30 years. Each of them, therefore, satisfies the age requirement for applying
to be re-mustered as Constable (Driver).
12. It is not disputed by the Respondent that each of the Petitioners has
successfully completed the basic D & M course (Sl. No. 34 or 35 as the case
may be). This Court accordingly directs the Respondents to allow each of
these Petitioners, if they were below 30 years on the date they applied for
being re-mustered as Constable (Driver) to be forthwith sent for the
remaining basic training as and where applicable. It is further directed that
on successful completion of such basic training each of them will be re-
mustered as Constable (Driver) as per the rules. Subject to their successful
completion of all the training courses, their seniority in the re-mustered
cadre will be fixed along with their batchmates and the notional date of their
re-musteration will be relevant for all other consequential reliefs. They,
however, will not be entitled to any arrears of pay.
13. The petitions are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances with no
order as to costs.
S.MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S.MEHTA, J.
APRIL 01, 2019
mw
