Delhi High Court
Force No 047010151 Insp Gd Sandeep Kumar ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~91
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 15100/2022
FORCE NO 047010151 INSP GD SANDEEP KUMAR
AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.A.K. Singh, Mr.Kamlesh
Kumar, Advs. with petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajnish Kumarm Gained,
SPC, Mr.Himanshu Gupta,
Adv. with Mr.Ajay Pal, Law
Officer-CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners pray for the re-
fixation of their seniority along with their batchmates in the Gradation
List of Inspector/GD dated 01.04.2017. The petitioners have been
denied their seniority on the ground that they had not completed the
mandatory field service for the post of Inspector.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the
Judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar & Ors v. Union of India &
Ors,. 2009:DHC:4482-DB, has submitted that the said issue is no
longer res-integra. He submits that this Court in Ashok Kumar & Ors.
(supra) has held as under:
"35. We may note that in all the cases, the
authorities concerned i.e. BSF and CRPF have
recommended to the Central Government that
the rule requiring two years' service in the
duty battalion be relaxed due to the fact that
all of a sudden a quantum jump in the cadre
strength took place in the year 2004, which
was not expected, and if the rule is strictly
enforced, junior officers would steal
promotion over the senior officers.
Unfortunately, while exercising the power, the
Central Government posed the wrong question
by considering the adequacy or inadequacy of
the number of officers in the feeder channel.
The power was relaxed for such posts where
officers in the feeder channel were less,
denying similar benefit in the other posts. The
correct question which need to be posed was,
as noted by us in para 30 above; the backdrop
in which the questions needed to be answered
was as noted in para 31 above. The law
applicable is the one as noted in paras 32 and
33 above.
36. We may note that with the increase in posts
in the year 2004 and knowing fully well that
the continued requirement of two years'
service in a duty battalion would hamper the
promotional career of the officers, the
respondents have themselves, put on track
mode, the identification of its officers in
various non-duty posts because the
respondents know and recognize that
transfer/posting is not in the hands of the
officers but is a prerogative of the department
and the department has to ensure that it
affords an opportunity to all its officers to
become qualified by serving in duty battalions.
This also highlights the fact that the sudden
change in situation in the year 2004, being
unexpected, required a proper administrative
redressal.
37. We accordingly quash the decision of the
Central Government declining to relax the
eligibility condition of two years' service in a
duty battalion for promotion to the post of
Inspector and 2 IC under BSF as also the post
of Inspector under CRPF."
3. He submits that this Court has, therefore, held that it is for the
respondents to post the officers for mandatory field service and having
not posted the petitioners for the same, cannot deny them their
seniority.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the
above position of law. He, however, submits that as far as petitioner
nos.4 and 5 are concerned, they have lost their promotion to the rank
of Assistant Commandant as they have tendered their unwillingness to
undergo the promotion course (ACPC) due to personal reasons.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder, submits
that by the present petition the petitioners are only seeking the correct
fixation of their seniority in the rank of Inspector/GD, and are not
praying for the rank/seniority to be fixed for the post of Assistant
Commandant.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties.
7. As would be evident from the above, this Court in Ashok
Kumar (supra), considering the similar view of the respondents, has
held that since the transfer/posting is a prerogative of the respondents,
the respondents cannot deny seniority to personnel only on the ground
that they have not been posted to undergo mandatory field service. We
have quoted the relevant findings of this Court in Ashok Kumar
(supra) hereinabove.
8. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to re-fix the
seniority of the petitioners in accordance with the Judgment of this
Court in Ashok Kumar (supra) and in accordance with the law, within
a period of eight weeks from today, and grant the consequential
benefits to the petitioners.
9. We need not make any comment on the rank/seniority of the
petitioners for the post of Assistant Commandant, as the same has not
been pleaded by the petitioners before us and is also not a subject
matter of the present petition.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JANUARY 20, 2025/Arya/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
