Vijendra Singh v. Indo Tibetan Border Police Force

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(a) Issue a writ/order/direction of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to set aside the Orders of Cancellation of Appointment of the Petitioner dated 13.10.2021 & 14.10.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1, as well as the Recruitment Letter dated 21.01.2022 issued by the Commandant CISF RTC Arakkonam and reinstate the Petitioner to the post of ASI in ITBP; (b) Issue a writ/order/direction of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to the Post of SI in ITBP with the same seniority and benefits;

(c) Issue a writ/order/direction of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondent No. 2 directing them to rescind their revaluation of the Petitioner and reinstate his status as an eligible candidate for the Post of SI in ITBP;

(d) Pass ad-interim / interim / ex-parte order(s) in respect of the prayers (a) to (c) hereinabove; and (e) Pass any other further order (s) / direction (s) as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

2. In effect, the petitioner is challenging the order cancelling his appointment as Sub Inspector (SI) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). He has also sought a consequential prayer that he should be reinstated to the post of SI in ITBP.

3. The facts as noted from the petition are that the petitioner was an Exserviceman having retired from the Indian Air Force (‘IAF’); while retiring from the IAF on 29.06.2011, he was issued a Graduation Equivalent Certificate for completing more than 18 years of service. The contents of the said certificate are reproduced as under:- THE FACTS:-

4. The respondent no.2/Staff Selection Commission (‘SSC’) had in the year 2014 invited applications for the post of SI and Assistant Sub-inspector (‘ASI’) in Delhi Police, CAPFs. The petitioner appeared under Exservicemen category in the said selection, on the basis of the deemed Graduation Certificate issued by the IAF.

5. Pursuant to the result declared by SSC, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter declaring him to be appointed to the post of SI in ITBP. There is no dispute that the petitioner was selected to the post of SI in ITBP. While working as SI in ITBP, the SSC vide letter dated 17.10.2019 had cancelled petitioner’s candidature to the post of SI in ITBP and on 09.10.2019, the SSC further revised the result. In the revised result, it was shown that the petitioner is selected to the post of ASI in CISF in the Exservicemen category, accordingly, he was appointed as an ASI in CISF.

6. The impugned order passed by the respondent/ITBP dated 13.10.2021 in paragraphs 4,[5] & 6, states the following:

Qualifications.

6. AND NOW THEREFORE, your request for continuation of service in the ITBP is rejected and your candidature for the post of S.I. in ITBP is hereby „CANCELLED‟ with immediate effect and your original dossier is being forwarded to CISF for your appointment as ASI in CISF.” The aforesaid order would reveal that the certificate which has been issued by the IAF in the year, 2011, relating to Graduation Equivalent Certificate was only valid for Group-C post where the prescribed qualification is Graduation. The post of SI being a Group (B) post, the said Certificate cannot be treated Graduation Equivalent Certificate for the post of SI. As stated in the Graduation Equivalent Certificate issued by the IAF, it was Graduation Equivalent Certificate for the Group (C) post and as such, he was given appointment as ASI in CISF.

7. Though various submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the parties, the counsel for the petitioner states that the issue is no more res-integra, in view of the judgment of this Court in case of Rajiv Kumar V. Government of India and Ors., 2021:DHC:2315-DB, wherein, this Court while considering an identical issue, in respect of a Graduation Equivalent Certificate issued by the IAF, has in paragraph 44 held as under:-

personnel in Group 'B' and Group 'C' posts. In fact, while the post of SI in DP is a Group 'C' post, that of SI in CAPFs is a Group 'B' post. Moreover, it is not controverted that till the year 2009, post of SI in BSF was a Group 'C' post and became a Group 'B' post merely because of increase in pay thereof. No difference between the duties to be performed by SI in DP and the SI in BSF or between the SI in BSF prior to 2009 and thereafter, has been shown. It is felt that the experience of 15 years and more in the Defence Forces, particularly when recruitment as SI in CAPFs is through a recruitment examination comprising of a written examination in (i) General Intelligence and Reasoning; (ii) General Knowledge and General Awareness; (iii) Quantitative Aptitude; (iv) English Comprehension; (v) English Language and Comprehension, followed by Physical Standards Test and Physical Endurance Test and Medical Examination, is sufficient for performance of duties as SI in CAPFs and equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Graduation from a Recognised University. Just because the Ex-servicemen do not have a college degree, does not mean that they will not be able to perform the duties of SI in CAPFs, particularly when they are found fit to perform the duties of SI in DP. It appears that a college degree is not required to be an SI in CAPFs. Intelligence is not just being book smart or having a college degree. It comprehends within itself, being intuitive and having ability to think outside the box and sometimes just realising that things need to change and being smart enough to change it. The ex-servicemen learn the essential lessons of life from hard battlefields. Moreover, the kind of duties, which the CAPFs are performing, are not different from the duties being performed by the defence personnel. A college degree is not needed by a member of the Armed Forces.” (Emphasis supplied)

8. The conclusion of this Court reveals that the Certificate issued is a Graduation Equivalent Certificate and hence, in that sense, the Certificate shall have effect of the holder having qualification equivalent to graduation.