Full Text
W.P.(C) 1408/2015
SANJAY KUMAR &ANR. Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Sanjiv Joshi, Advocate with
Ms.Varsha Jain, Advocate
^ W.P.(C) 1439/2015 DAMODAR LAL & ORS Petitioners
Represented by: None
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
•p "
13.03.2015
ORDER
1. The petitioners were appointed as ancillary staff in the Railway Protection Force pursuant to a Railway Advertisement No.1/2008 dated March 07, 2008. As per the advertisement in question the minimum age prescribed as on July 01, 2008 was 18 years and maximum 33 years. The writ petitioners were recruited as ancillary staffbeing found within the upper W.P.(C) Nos.1408/2015 8c 1439/2015 Page 1of[3] 2015:DHC:11356-DB limitofthe age prescribed; but all had crossed the age of30 years.
2. A decision was taken to fill up 10% vacancies of constables in the Railway Protection Force from the ancillary staff who had rendered 5 years service and upper age limit of35 years was fixed.
3. This was in terms of direction No.14 issued by the Director General RPF in exercise ofhis power vested under Rule 28 ofthe RPF Rules, 1987.
4. The petitioners have a problem. The eligibility norm of 5 years' service as an ancillary staff would make them ineligible on account of the fact that by the time they serve for 5 years they would be beyond the age of 35 years prescribed under Directive 14. The claim of the writ petitioners is that when directive No.14 dated June 30, 2005 was issued, upper age limit prescribed for appointment as ancillary staff was 27 years, which was enhanced to 33 years when petitioners were appointed in the year 2008.
5. It is apparent that the petitioners bring out a mismatch.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents have today produced a letter dated March 12, 2015 addressed by the Chief Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force highlighting the anomalous situation and requesting the DO RPF to consider extending benefit of age relaxation to the ancillary staff who were recruited when the upper age limit prescribed was 33 years.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the Railway Board would have to take the necessary decision.
8. In our opinion the Railway Board has not to take the necessary decision for the reason Rule 28 of the RPF Rules, 1987 reads as under:- "28. Powers ofthe Director-General to issue '^Directives": The Director-General may, from time to time, issue such directions, in theform ofDirectives, relating to the enforcement andfurtherance ofthe provisions ofthe Act and these rules, as W.P.(C) Nos. 1408/2015 & 1439/2015 Page he may think necessary and the superior officers and enrolled members of the Force shall be governed by such "Directives " in the performance and discharge oftheir duties. "
9. It is trite that it is the Director General RPF who is empowered to issue directives from time to time in matters concerning service of superior officers and enrolled members ofthe force.
10. Pertaining to the issue at hand, the Railway Board would at best be a consultative body and no more.
11. We dispose of the two writ petitions issuing a direction that within 3 months necessary decision would be taken and conveyed to the petitioners concerning age relaxation as a onetime measure for those who were appointed as ancillary staff when the upper age limit for eligibility of the ancillary staff was 33 years for purposes of eligibility to become constables in the 10% vacancies ofconstables in the Railway Protection Force.
12. No costs. CM No.2466/2015 in W.P.fQ No.1408/2015 CM No.2530/2015 in W.P.fO No.1439/2015 Dismissed as infructuous.