Naveen Kumar v. Union of India; Tarun Kumar Meena v. Union of India

2. Ms. Alka Ali accepts notice and submits that the issues raised by some persons similarly placed as the petitioners have been the subject matter of favourable consideration in their favour in several writ W.P.(C) Nos.B373 S. 8374/2070 2010:DHC:12379-DB '\ petitions prior hitherto and for this reason, no counter affidavit is necessary. Counsel for parties have, therefore, been orally heard'

3. Naveen Kumar and Tarun Kumar Meena have assailed the action of the respondents in denying them the consideration for promotion from the post of Sub-lnspector to lnspector with the Central Reserve police Force ('cRPF', hereafter) by way of the present writ petitions' The petitioners were not granted promotion on the ground that the they did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of two years field service (Battalion dutY). The petitioners are seeking a mandamus to the respondents to waive the said condition and consider them for such promotion'

4. In support of the writ petitions, reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the judgment dated 27th October, 2009 rendered in wp(c)No.2LgOO/2OO[5] Ashok Kumar vs. llnion of India and ors. as well as connected writ petitions which raise an identical issue in the context of personnel who were employed by the Border security Force as well as the Central Reserve Police Force'

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parfies' There is no dispute to the factual narration.

6. Just as in the case of Ashok Kumar vs' llnion of lndia (Supra)' there is no dispute herein also to the contention of the petitioners that W.P.(C) Nos.B373 & 8374/2070 ! o/ they were not responsible in any manner for theii postings' We fin[6] force in the submission of the petitioners that it was for the respondents to have taken appropriate steps for issuing the 'posting orders to duty battalions in case such seivice was to be considered essentia I for promotions.

7. Having failed to do so, the promotion for the reason that theY cannot be denied served in the field petitioners have not.r \ positions.

8. The petitioners have also drawn our attention to the power available with the competent authority under the rules for relaxing/waiving the requirement of two years service in the duty battalion. Such power has been exercised and the condition already relaxed in respect of the identically situated persons by the respondents. ln view of the above, it is directed as follows:-

(i) The decision of the Central Government.declining to relax the eligibility condition of two years service in duty battalion for promotion of the petitioners to the post of Inspector under the CRPF shall stand quashed.

(ii) A direction is issued to the Central Government to reconsider the case of the petitioners, after the aforenoticed relaxation, and to pass appropriate orders, if the decision is taken in their favour, for Y fpromotion with effect from the petitioners were Promoted. In be entitled to all consequential and arrears of paY..-4 \ date persons immediately junior to the \ such eventuality, the petitioners would benefits including seniority, pay fixation

(iii) The case of the petitioners shall be forwarded by the competent authority to the Ministry of Home Affairs positively within a period of four weeks from today. The consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs shall be communicated to the petitioners within eight weeks thereafter. \ 1iv) The petitioners shall be sent for SICC Course which is mandatory for promotion to the rank of Asstt. Commandant and if found fit shall be promoted from the date their juniors have been promoted' These writ petitions are allowed in the above terms' Dasti under signature of court master.

DECEMBER 16, 2O1O kr T Y MOOL CHA GARG, J