Background

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of the Central Reserve Police Force, was promoted to the rank of Inspector/GD on 31.03.1999. He was seconded abroad from 06/21/2001. When he became eligible to undergo promotion training (senior inspector cadre) in 2004, the Ministry of External Affairs refused to induct him into the CRPF due to deputation. On 01.05.2007, he was relieved by his borrowing organization and on 11.07.2007, he joined the 9th Battalion, CRPF.

The respondents passed orders dated 15.10.2007 and 12.11.2007, protecting the applicant’s chances and seniority of promotion. Therefore, he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commander on 23.10.2009 after completing the promotion course. However, the benefit of notional promotion was not granted to him, against which he filed a representation before the respondents.

On 22.09.2011, an order was issued reallocating the seniority of the petitioner and placing him above a person named Sh. Ajay Kumar in Sl. No. 205A in the grading list. Ajay Kumar was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant in 2011, while the petitioner was promoted on 21.08.2012, leading another representation of the petitioner seeking re-grant of his seniority. The respondents passed an order on 14.08.2013, placing the petitioner above Ajay Kumar in the rank of Deputy Commandant.

Later, when the petitioner was due for the next promotion, a list of the promoted officers was published by the respondents, but the petitioner’s name was missing from the list. It is relevant that Ajay Kumar was promoted as per the list.

After being recommended for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Commission for the vacancy year 2018-19, the name of the petitioner was again ignored in the list of promoted officials, leading to another representation vide letter dated 28.07 .2018.

The petitioner was informed by the respondents that as per the Central Reserve Police Force Group ‘A’ (General Duty) Officer Recruitment Rules, 2010, 10 years of service in Group A was mandatory for promotion and, since petitioner did not fulfill this condition, it rendered him ineligible for promotion.

On 12.10.2018 he was excluded again, leading to another protest which was also rejected. The petitioner was finally promoted on 31.12.2020.

On 01.09.2019, a list of officers entitled to the grant of NFFU from JAG was published and the name of the petitioner was included, however, on 18.05.2020, the benefit was denied to the petitioner while l ‘granting Ajay Kumar. Later, the petitioner was also granted NFFU, but on 01.01.2020 led to another claim filed by the petitioner which was rejected on 16.02.2022.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Claims of the petitioner:

Relying on the judgment of Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4886, the petitioner contended that as per the rules, if the petitioner was granted retrospective seniority to the post of Deputy Commandant, the date of appointment to the post would be considered as 17.08.2004 . Counsel contended that since Ajay Kumar was also appointed on the same date and was granted exemption from further promotion and NFFU accordingly, the petitioner could not be denied the same.

Claims of the defendant:

Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the rules, the applicant was required to have compulsorily 10 years of service in Group ‘A’, including 5 years of service in the rank of Deputy Commandant, for promotion.

Furthermore, referring to the Standing Order issued by the Director General of CRPF, the Board declared that only those officers who would be in the medical category “SHAPE-I” would be entitled to be appointed, promoted or deputized.

It was submitted that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the grade of 2-I/C, but he did not fall within 10 years of service in Group ‘A’ and 5 years of residency period. Therefore, the Ministry of Interior did not grant the petitioner a relaxation of the residence period.

The counsel argued for seniority not accorded to the petitioner, contending that the question of seniority was governed by the Government of India. In accordance with the Office memorandum, a person considered unsuitable for promotion and replaced by his subordinate will not take seniority in the higher grade compared to the junior officer.

It was further submitted that the petitioner was found unfit by the selection committee in a meeting in 2020 as he had not completed 10 years of service in Group ‘A’ as on 01.04.2017. Later in 2021, the petitioner was found fit for grant of NFFU with effect from 01.01.2020.

High Court findings

The Court held that it was not the applicant’s fault that he was not promoted and that it was beyond his control to be relieved by his borrowing department to obtain the grades with the other comrades, as also recognized by the respondents.

Terming this as a “strict” practice in relation to the Rules, the Court observed that the respondents had not approached the petitioner with a caring attitude. The Court held that the refusal of the applicant to benefit from retrospective seniority in the grade in the same way as his comrades and above his immediate junior in the said grade could not be sustained given that the underlying reasons were independent of his will.

The Court placed reliance on the judgment in Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3407, in which it held:

“Petitioner had no choice but to serve wherever he was assigned. Furthermore, force personnel have no say in matters of posting and it is therefore the ministry which is wrong not to allow a person to complete two years of service in a service battalion , while this constitutes a prerequisite to mandatory field service for grant of promotion. Failure to comply with the condition of access to promotion requiring two years of service in a service battalion cannot be held against the person concerned because it is the sole prerogative of the department.

Referring to several other judgments, notably Jay Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7276, Dharam Narayan Borana v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6406 And Sudhindra Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors, the Court directed the respondents to grant retrospective seniority to the petitioner in the post of 2-I/C from the date on which Ajay Kumar obtained such promotion, and to place him immediately above Ajay Kumar in the seniority list at rank 2. -I/C.

Accordingly, the petition was granted.

Case Title: Jeewraj Singh Shekhawat v UOI and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1194

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra and Mr. Pranjal Marwah, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC.

Click here to download the order/judgment