Const. Ram Bhagat v. Union of India

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) No.7708/2021

3. The petitioner, working as a Constable with the respondents Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has filed the present petition seeking quashing of Signals dated 10th March, 2016 and 29th April, 2016 in terms of which the petitioner has not been re-mustered as a Driver, as he did not meet the requisite age criteria for being re-mustered.

4. The petitioner joined the respondents as a Constable (Trade) on 25th June, 2009. The respondents amended the Central Reserve Police Force 2021:DHC:2331-DB Group ‘C’ (General Duty/Technical/Tradesmen) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2010 on 13th November, 2014, in terms of which the upper age-limit prescribed for re-musteration of candidates, was made 30 years for all categories, including OBC, at the time of re-musteration. On 23rd February, 2015, the petitioner, an OBC candidate, was recommended and was detailed for the Driving and Mechanic (D&M) Course for being re-mustered as a Driver. The petitioner was below the age of 30 years at that time. However, by the time the said course was completed on 20th June, 2015, the petitioner had crossed the age of 30 years and therefore, became ineligible for being re-mustered as a Driver as per the amendment dated 13th November, 2014.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment/order dated 28th July, 2017 in W.P.(C) No.10548/2016 titled Const. Karan Singh Vs. Union of India, judgment/order dated 1st April, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.873/2018 titled Const. Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and order dated 12th March, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.2684/2020 titled Const. Balvir Choudhary Vs. Union of India to contend that this Court has granted the benefit of re-musteration to similarly placed candidates.

6. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice submits that the present petition is highly belated and should be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

7. The petitioner has impugned the Signals dated 10th March, 2016 and 29th April, 2016 in the present petition that has been filed in 2021. There is an unexplained and inordinate delay of five years. Reliance by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Const. Karan Singh supra, Const. Rajesh Kumar supra and Const. Balvir Choudhary supra, is completely misplaced, as in the said cases, the petitioners had approached the Court with their grievance within reasonable time of the cause of action arising in their favour. The petitioner has filed this petition only after he became wiser in the light of the aforesaid judgments passed by this Court in favour of similarly placed persons and that too, much after the said judgments/orders were passed. The petitioner, by agitating his rights belatedly, after five years of issuance of the impugned Signals, cannot claim parity with those who exercised due diligence and agitated their rights immediately after the cause of action arose in their favour. Moreover, the Court cannot entertain a claim, reopening of which could give rise to affecting settled rights of third parties.

8. It is settled position of law that a litigant has to approach the Court at the earliest and cannot sit over his rights and wake up only after awaiting the outcome of petitions filed by other similarly placed persons. Reference in this regard may be made to Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation (2009) 1 SCC 297, State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108, Prabhakar Vs Joint Director, Sericulture Department (2015) 15 SCC 1 and U.P. Power Corporation Vs. Ram Gopal

9. Even otherwise, the petitioner, since the time of his joining the respondents CRPF in 2009 has been discharging duties at the posts of Constable Trade and Constable (GD). The counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that the petitioner currently works as a Cook. Thus, he has had no experience of driving vehicles. He did his training as a Driver way back in 2015. Now, at this stage after twelve years, the petitioner cannot be allowed to change his trade and be re-mustered as a Driver. Allowing the petitioner to re-muster as a Driver at this stage, could potentially cause havoc on the roads. The same cannot be permitted.

10. No merit is found in the present petition.

11. Dismissed. AMIT BANSAL, J. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 4, 2021 'bs'