Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
NISHAN SINGH AND ORS. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Manu Padalia, Advocate
Through: Mr.Raj Kumar Yadav & Mr.Sanjay Singh, Advocates
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking setting aside of the Signals dated 10.03.2016 and 29.04.2016 issued by the respondents whereby petitioners have not been remustered as Drivers on the pretext that they do not meet the requisite eligibility criteria, being over aged. In addition, parity is sought with petitioners in W.P.(C) 10548/2016, who pursuant to directions of this Court vide judgment dated 28.07.2017 have been remustered as Drivers.
2. The petitioners had joined the services of Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) as Constable/GD. The respondents issued Signals inviting 16:34 applications from all the eligible Coys to join D & M Course Sr. No.35 for being remustered as Driver. The petitioners were recommended by their battalion for the course.
3. According to petitioners, they were recommended by the Superiors being eligible as per Standing Order No. 03/2011 dated 20.05.2011 for remusteration and were detailed for D & M Course No. 35, which commenced in August, 2015. The petitioners claim that at the time they were detailed for D & M Course No. 35, they were below the age of 30 years i.e. the age prescribed in aforesaid Standing Instruction NO. 03/2011.
4. The petitioners claim that after having successfully completed their D & M Course No. 35 in December, 2015, they were sent back to their units awaiting instructions for their remusteration. The result of D & M Course No. 35 in December, 2015 was declared on 18.12.2015, however, petitioners were unaware about their remusteration. Upon enquiring from the respondents, they were informed that their request for remustering was turned down as they were over aged. The respondents informed that the maximum age for remusteration was 30 years at the time of completion of the course.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that prior to petitioners selection to undergo the D&M Course No. 35; the CRPF Recruitment Rules, 2010 (‘RR’) were amended vide notification dated 13.11.2014 where-under the maximum age for remusteration is 30 years even for SC/ST/OBC candidates. It was submitted that the respondents have misinterpreted the RRs 2014 and 16:34 have not remustered the petitioners stating that they will be over 30 years of age when they will be finally remustered after undergoing 44 weeks of Basic Training. It was submitted that though the amended RR, 2014 came into force prior to petitioners joining the D & M Course but the respondents have themselves followed the afore-noted Standing Instruction No. 03/2011 to determine the eligibility of the candidates and not the amended RRs 2014.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners next submitted that according to RR, 2014 the maximum age for remusteration will be 30 years (including OBC/SC/ST category) and at the time of joining the D & M Course No.35 in August, 2015, the petitioners had not completed 30 years of age. It is pursuant to completion of D & M Course No.35 by the petitioners, the respondent released clarification vide Signals dated 10.03.2016 and 29.04.2016 stating that the amended RR, 2014 shall be considered for the purpose of remusteration. Thereby, the provision for age relaxation for SC/ST/OBC candidates had been done away and for the purpose of remustration, the candidate has to be below the age of 30 years at the time of completion of the course. It is against the impugned Signals dated 10.03.2016 and 29.04.2016 issued by the respondents whereby petitioners have not been remustered as Drivers, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners, seeking setting aside of the same.
7. In support of this petition, petitioners have placed reliance upon decision of this Court dated 28.07.2017 in W.P.(C) 10548/2016 & W.P.(C) 4160/2017, whereby constables working under respondents were remustered as Drivers. Reliance was also placed upon decisions of this 16:34 Court dated 01.04.2019 in W.P.(C) 873/2018 and dated 05.02.2020 in W.P.(C) 8765/2019, whereby this Court had categorically held that the age limit at the time of detailing for the D & M Course has to be seen to check the eligibility.
8. To controvert the claim of petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that there is no dispute to the position that these petitioners had undergone D & M Course Sl. No.35 at CTC CRPF w.e.f. 3.08.2015 and the result was declared on 18.12.2015. However, vide Signals dated 10.03.2015 and 29.04.2016, the respondents directed that during D & M course Sl. No. 34 & 35 conducted at CTC CRPF Neemuch, candidates were not imparted any training for heavy vehicle as they did not possess the heavy vehicle license and so, as per RR 2014, these candidates were required to fulfil the eligibility condition as was applicable to candidates of open competition. So, a direction was issued that the candidates who were successful in D & M 34 & 35 and are in possession of heavy transport vehicle license, were required to undergo upgradation course Sl. No.1 & 02 of six weeks at CTC Neemuch, provided they had not crossed the age of 30 years on the date of completion of Spl. D & M Basic Training. Also, it was mentioned that those who are in possession of LMV/MMV will not be detailed for Spl. D & M up gradation course Sl. No.1, as they do not fill the eligibility criteria. Therefore, since these petitioners were not in possession of heavy motor vehicle license and were not detailed for Special D & M course Sl. No. 1 & 2, therefore, they were not remustered in the rank of CT/Driver. Learned counsel submitted that age is no criteria and has no relevance in 16:34 the present case.
9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that remusteration as Constable (Driver) is governed by Para- 11(e) of Standing Order No. 03/2011 dated 20.05.2011. It was submitted that under the RR 2014, to have a heavy vehicle license and to undergo D & M upgradation course is not a mandatory requirement and, therefore, the petitioners had not submitted their heavy vehicle licenses. Moreover, the amendment to the recruitment rules was only to the extent of doing away with the age relaxation for SC/ST/OBC candidates. Also, the plea of respondents that only those candidates would be remustered who as Constable (Drivers) are in possession of heavy driving license, has already been negated by this Court vide judgment dated 05.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) 8765/2019.
10. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were never called upon by the respondents to produce their heavy vehicle license for the purpose of remustration, though the petitioners are in possession of heavy motor vehicle licenses. Lastly, it was submitted that this Court in earlier decisions has held that the age limit at the time of detailing for the D & M course has to be seen to check eligibility and so, denial to remsutre the petitioners by the respondents holding them over aged is illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of material placed on record, this Court finds that pursuant to respondents notifying D & M Course Sl. No.35 for remusteration as Driver, the petitioners have claimed that the said remusteration was governed by 16:34 Standing Order No. 03/2011 dated 20.05.2011, Para-11 whereof notes the eligibility criteria, which read as under:-
12. The petitioners having been recommended by their Superiors of their battalion, applied for the same and successfully completed the 35th D&M Course and vide Special Force Order No. 33/2015 dated 18.12.2015, petitioners were declared qualified in the same. Thereafter, the respondents vide impugned Signal No.R.II.15/2014-RECTT (CT/TRADESMAN (214) ) dated 10.03.2016 modified the eligibility criteria notifying as under:-
E. CTs/GD and CT (Tradesman) are to meet other norms laid down in RRs.”
13. Thereafter, vide another Signal NO.R.II.15/2014-RECTT (CT/TRADESMAN(214) ) dated 29.04.2016, the respondents notified as under:- SL DOUBTS CLARIFICATION
4. What are the eligibility criteria of new introduced 12 weeks D&M Course? Eligibility criteria for 12 Weeks D&M A) Completion of 3 years service from the date of attestation. B) Minimum educational qualification is matriculation pass. C) Possession of transport (Heavy) Vehicles driving license. D) Personnel in Possession of LMV/MMV are not eligible in any future D&M courses. E) As per Recruitment Rules maximum age for remusteration will be 30 years ( for all category), as such candidates of OBC/ SC/ ST category should also be within the age limit of 30 years at the time of remusteration and not the time of detailment may be done keeping in view the 16:34 others aspects such as Basic Training D&M Course period. F) All other guidelines issued vide this Dte Sig of even no. dated 10/03/16 and 18/03/16 may be adhered strictly.
14. Petitioners are aggrieved of the afore-noted Signals dated 10.03.2016 and 29.04.2016 issued by the respondents, whereby the eligibility criteria for demusteration to the post of Constable (Driver) was modified. The fact remains, when these Signals dated 10.03.2016 and 29.04.2016 were issued by the respondents, by the said time the petitioners were already declared successful in 35th D&M Course for remusteration as Constable (Driver).
15. In the present petition, the petitioners have primarily challenged the aforementioned impugned Signals on the ground that the respondents have rejected their candidature by stating that the petitioners do not meet the requisite eligibility criteria, being over aged. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it has been averred that the plea of petitioners that at the time of their detailing for D & M Course No. 35, they were below the age of 30 years i.e. the age prescribed in aforesaid Standing Instruction No. 03/2011; cannot be accepted, as vide amended RR 2014, the relaxation in age was done away and for remusteration, the candidate has to be below the age of 30 years at the time of completion of the course.
16. On this issue, the petitioners have relied upon decisions of this 16:34 Court dated 28.07.2017 in W.P.(C) 10548/2016, titled as Constable Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.; dated 28.07.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 4160/2017, titled as Const. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.; dated 05.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 8765/2019, titled as Ajay Kumar And Ors. Vs. Union Of India And Ors. wherein the constables working under respondents were remustered as Drivers.
17. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the age factor has no relevancy in the present petition. Since the petitioners have emphasized on the age issue, we have gone through the decisions relied upon by the petitioners.
18. In Constable Karan Singh(Supra), the petitioner therein had challenged denial of his remusteration as Constable (Driver) being over aged despite having qualified the D & M Course Sl. No. 34. It was during the course of his 44weeks’ training, the petitioner therein was asked to report to his unit, as being over aged, he could not be remustered as Constable (Driver); though the petitioner claimed that he was less than 30 years of age when he was detailed for D & M Course No.35. The respondents therein had taken the plea that it was not the age at the time of joining the D & M Course which has to be taken but the age at the time of completion of 44 weeks’ training and since petitioner therein was more than 30 years of age, so he was ineligible. A Bench of this Court while referring to the amended RR 2014 vide Gazette Notification dated 13.11.2014, observed as under:- “14. The Recruitment Rule relating to the 16:34 post of Constable (Driver) was amended vide Gazette Notification dated 13.11.2014 and the relevant portion of the new or amended Rule reads:- “(a) Against serial number 5 relating to the post of Constable (Driver) under column (7), for the words, figures and brackets “Between 18 and 23 years (5 years age relaxation in case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and 3 years in case of Other Backward Classes candidates for direct recruitment)” the following entry shall be substituted, namely:—
(i) Between 21 and 27 years (Relaxation for
(ii) Upto 30 years in case of remusteration by giving relaxation of 3 years to departmental candidates.” XXXXX
20. It would lead to absurdity if we accept the stand of the respondents that government servants who are working in other departments would be eligible if they are less than 30 years of age as on the cut-off date but the departmental candidates who are considered for remuster, would be over aged as their age on the date when they complete the D&M Course or the basic training is the deciding factor/criteria.
21. Age eligibility has to be with reference to a fixed point in time. There should not be any scope of introducing uncertainty on account of variable factors. This would bring 16:34 hardship and injustice by eliminating some of those who are eligible. We would prefer an interpretation which ensures clarity and certainty.”
19. In Const. Rajesh Kumar (Supra), another Bench of this Court while relying upon decision in Constable Karan Singh(Supra) held as under:-
20. In Ajay Kumar and Ors. (Supra), this Court in the light of its earlier decision in Const. Rajesh Kumar (Supra), held as under:-
21. A perusal of afore-quoted decisions in Constable Karan Singh (Supra), Const. Rajesh Kumar (Supra) and Ajay Kumar And Ors. (Supra) clearly show that on the issue of age, this Court has noted that the RR 2014, vide Gazette Notification dated 13.11.2014, prescribes that in case of remusteration, the age of 30 years, with 03 years of relaxation to departmental candidates, has been given. The Court also held that when the candidates after qualifying the D & M course, which is a basic course, having undergone the 44 weeks course; they might have crossed the age of 30 years, but it will not disqualify them for remusteration.
22. Coming to the facts of the present case, we find that as on the date petitioners were detailed for D & M Course No. 35, they were below the age of 30 and even though respondents have taken a stand that the age factor in the present petition has no relevancy, however, while rejecting remusteration of the petitioners one of the grounds taken by the respondents in the impugned Signals is that they were over aged. In our considered opinion, the controversy with regard to age of the candidates has already been put to rest in afore-noted decisions.
23. In Constable Karan Singh (Supra), wherein while taking note of the fact that one of the eligibility condition for remusteration was that the candidate has to be below the age of 30 years, which was neither deleted nor modified by the 2010 rules, as amended in 2014 rules. The aforesaid view of this Court in Constable Karan Singh (Supra) was also followed in Constable Rajesh Kumar (Supra). The petitioners in the present case 16:34 were below the age of 30 years when they applied for D & M Course and so, they cannot be denied to get benefit of remusteration on this ground.
24. Coming next to the plea of respondents that as per RR 2014, the petitioner were required to possess the heavy vehicle license and in its absence, they have not been imparted training for heavy vehicle, and so they are ineligible for being remustered, however, we find that similar reasoning has been given in the impugned Signal dated 10.03.2016, which notes as under:- “Issues considered at a glance (.) (a) (.) during D&M course Sl.34 and Sl. 35 conducted at CTC NMH, candidates were not imparted any TRG/Experience of Heavy Vehicle Licenses as candidates were not in possession in Heavy Vehicle License (.) (b) (.) candidates required FM open market having transport vehicle license are required after conducting their trade test (driving test) (.) (c) (.) such candidates undergone D&M course Sl.34 and Sl. 35 who are fulfilling all the eligibility conditions as per amended RRs-2014 are only to be remustered………..if only once course of D&M Course is held then its duration is also to be decided for future courses”
25. On the other hand, to submit that holding of heavy motor vehicle license is not must, petitioners have relied upon Para-11(e) of the Standing Order No. 03/2011 dated 20.05.2011. This Court has gone through the aforesaid Standing Order which reads as under:-
26. A perusal of the above shows that in terms of Para- 11(e) of Standing Order No. 03/2011 dated 20.05.2011, the Constables (GD) who have the aptitude for driving but not in possession of a driving license, may be provisionally selected for remusteration and after attending the D&M Course successfully they will be detailed to drive light motor vehicles and after upgradation courses of six weeks’ duration, they can be upgraded for medium and heavy motor vehicles.
27. In the present case, the petitioners have successfully qualified the 35th D & M course. They claim to be in possession of heavy vehicle license and also they were actually never called upon by the respondents to produce the same. Even respondents have not placed any documents on record to show that petitioners were asked to produce heavy vehicle license, which they failed to produce and so, they could be sent for further upgradation course Sl. No.1 & 02 of six weeks at CTC Neemuch. Respondents have also failed to bring any document on record to show 16:34 that condition mentioned in Para- 11(e) of Standing Order No. 03/2011 dated 20.05.2011 have been modified or deleted.
28. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ajay Kumar (Supra) has noted that “while the earlier amendment to the RRs was limited to doing away with the aforesaid age relaxations, keeping the requirement of undergoing the D&M Course intact, now even this requirement for the purpose of remusteration has been done away with.” Also, Para- 11(e) of Standing Order No. 03/2011 dated 20.05.2011 permits remusteration after attending D & M Course successfully even if the candidate is in possession of light motor vehicle license, giving further opportunity to upgrade after undergoing 06 weeks course, so we find no justification denying remusteration by the respondents to the petitioners.
29. In the light of the fact that as on the date of detailing for D & M Course No. 35 by their Superior, petitioners were below 30 years of age and they successfully qualified the aforesaid course and also the fact that they were in possession of the requisite heavy motor vehicle license, the present petition is allowed.
30. In the light of aforesaid, the present petition is allowed to the extent that those petitioners who were below the age of 30 years as on the date they applied for being remustered as Driver (Constable) and have successfully undergone the basic training, shall be remustered as Driver (Constable) and their seniority shall reckon from the date other applicants who completed 35th D & M course. Consequentially, respondents are directed to pass necessary orders and grant consequential benefits, including arrears, within four weeks. 16:34
31. With aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE MAY 19, 2023 r 16:34