Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Reasons Beyond the Candidate’s Control; Delhi High Court Grants Promotion to Army Officer

Background

The applicant, who worked as an Assistant Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Organization, was promoted to the rank of Inspector/GD on 31.03.1999. He was appointed as a deputy abroad, effective from 21.06.2001. When he qualified for the Promotion (Senior Inspector Cadre) course in 2004, the Ministry of External Affairs refused to bring him into the CRPF due to deputation. He was relieved from the loan organization on 01.05.2007 and joined the 9th Battalion CRPF on 11.07.2007.

The respondents issued orders dated 15.10.2007 and 12.11.2007 protecting the promotion chances and seniority of the petitioner. As a result, he completed the Promotion Course and was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commander on 23.10.2009. However, he was not granted notional promotion and made an adverse statement before the Defendants.

On 22.09.2011, the plaintiff’s seniority change and Ş. Ajay Kumar, Sl. No. in the rating list. 205A. While Ajay Kumar was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant in 2011, the petitioner was promoted on 21.08.2012, leading to another representation by the Petitioner seeking reassignment of his Seniority. The Respondents passed an order on 14.08.2013 placing the Petitioner above Ajay Kumar in the rank of Deputy Commandant.

Later, when it came time for Petitioner’s next promotion, the list of promoted officers was published by Respondents, but Petitioner’s name was missing from the list. Ajay Kumar was promoted based on the list.

After being recommended for consideration by the Divisional Promotion Committee for the gap year 2018-19, the Petitioner’s name was again omitted from the list of promoted officers, leading to another representation by letter dated 28.07.2018.

The Respondents were informed that as per the Central Reserve Police Force Group ‘A’ (General Duty) Officers Recruitment Rules, 2010, 10 years of Group A service is mandatory for promotion and the Petitioner has not fulfilled this condition. this made him unpromotable.

He was expelled again on 12.10.2018, leading to another representation that was also rejected. The petitioner was finally promoted on 31.12.2020.

On 01.09.2019, a list of officers eligible for JAG’s NFFU was published and the name of the Petitioner was also included, but on 18.05.2020, relief was denied to the Petitioner while the same was granted to Ajay Kumar. Later, NFFU was also granted to the Petitioner but we led another affidavit filed by the Petitioner on 01.01.2020 which was rejected on 16.02.2022.

The applicant, disturbed by this situation, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Applicant’s claims:

Rakesh Kumar v. Relying on the decision in the case of Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4886, the Petitioner submitted that as per the rules, if retroactive seniority has been granted to him for the post of Deputy Commandant, the date of appointment shall be deemed to be 17.08.2004. Counsel submitted that since Ajay Kumar was also appointed on the same date and was exempted from subsequent promotion and NFFU, the Petitioner cannot be rejected in the same manner.

Defendant’s Claims:

The Respondent’s Counsel submitted that as per the Rules, it is mandatory for the Petitioner to have 10 years of Group ‘A’ service, including 5 years of service in the rank of Deputy Commandant, to be eligible for promotion.

Further, referring to the Standing Order issued by the Director General of CRPF, the Legal Counsel stated that only officers falling in Medical Category ‘SHAPE-I’ will be eligible for appointment, promotion or posting.

It was stated that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion to the rank of 2-I/C but was not covered by 10 years of Group ‘A’ service and 5 years of residence. For this reason, the Ministry of Internal Affairs did not grant exemption to the applicant during his residence period.

Counsel argued in terms of Seniority not granted to the Petitioner, arguing that the matter of seniority was managed by the GOI. According to the Office Memorandum, a person who was deemed ineligible for promotion and was replaced by a subordinate would not be able to receive seniority at a level above the junior officer.

At the meeting held in 2020, it was stated that the applicant was not deemed suitable by the Screening Committee due to not completing the 10-year ‘A’ Group service on 01.04.2017. Later in 2021, the petitioner was found to be eligible to receive NFFU with effect from 01.01.2020.

Findings of the Supreme Court

The Court held that, as the Defendants had admitted, it was not the Plaintiff’s fault that he was not promoted and that it was beyond his control that he was relieved by the borrowing department to take up the ranks along with his other batch mates.

Describing this as a ‘rigid’ practice in relation to the rules, the Court observed that the Defendants did not approach the Plaintiff in good faith. The Court held that the denial of retroactive seniority to the Claimant, along with his batch mates and at the rank above his most junior in that rank, was not maintainable given that the reasons behind it were beyond his control.

The Court, Ashok Kumar v. He relied on the decision in Union of India & Ors., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3407;

“Petitioner had no choice but to serve where he was assigned. Moreover, force personnel have no say in the appointment and therefore it is the department that is at fault in not allowing a person to serve in the duty battalion for two years, even though this is a prerequisite for the provision of compulsory field service. promotion. Failure to meet the eligibility requirement for promotion, which requires two years of service in the duty battalion, may not be held against the individual concerned; Because this situation is only under the authority of the ministry.”

Referring to many other decisions including Jay Pratap Singh – India and Ors. Union, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7276, Dharam Narayan Borana v. India and Ors. Union, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6406 And Sudhindra Kumar Singh / Union of India and Ors, The court directed the respondents to grant retrospective seniority to petitioner Ajay Kumar for the post of 2-I/C from the date of grant of this promotion and place him immediately above Ajay Kumar at rank 2 in the seniority list. -DRINK.

Accordingly, the Petition was allowed.

Case Title: Jeewraj Singh Shekhawat vs UOI and Ors

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1194

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra and Mr. Pranjal Marwah, Atty.

Respondents’ Advocate: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC.

Click Here to Download the Decision/Decision