Raj Kumar Garg vs Union Of India And Ors.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying inter alia for directing the respondents/CRPF to permit him to join the Force on the post

of SI (GD).

The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/CRPF had issued an advertisement on 28.03.2015, for conducting recruitment to the post of

Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspectors in CISF Examination-2015. The petitioner applied for the post of SI (GD) in

response to the aforesaid advertisement and participated in the written examinations as also the Physical Endurance Test (PET). The results were

declared on 16.03.2016, wherein the petitioner's name featured as a successful candidate. On 30.06.2016, the respondents/CRPF issued an offer of

appointment to the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) and he was called upon to report for duty at Karbianglong, Assam on or before

29.07.2016.On 28.07.2016, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondents seeking exemption from joining duty by 29.07.2016, on the ground that

he was suffering from an acute back pain.

Vide letter dated 06.08.2016, the respondents informed the petitioner that the basic training for the post of SI (GD) is scheduled to commence with

effect from 05.09.2016 and he was directed to join duty by the said date, failing which, his candidature would be treated as cancelled and no further

application will be entertained later on for extension. The petitioner did not join duty by the given date and instead, wrote another letter dated

23.08.2016 to the respondents informing them that he had been advised further rest on account of lower back pain and therefore sought exemption

from joining duty.

Vide letter dated 07.11.2016, the petitioner was informed by the respondents that his matter had been referred to the higher authorities in view of

his representation dated 28.07.2016, for seeking further extension of time to join duty and he was informed that if he did not join duty on or before

29.12.2016, then it will be presumed that he is not interested and his application would be cancelled. The petitioner was also warned that no request

for extension of time to join the service will be considered thereafter. Despite the same, the petitioner did not join duty within the stipulated time.

Instead, he wrote a letter dated 23.12.2016 to the respondents stating inter alia that his mother was suffering from some ailments and he had no other

member in the family to attend to his parents. The petitioner again sought further extension of the letter of appointment, by three months.

The respondents wrote a letter to the petitioner on 03.01.2017 informing him that since he had not reported within the stipulated time frame, his

candidature for the post of SI (GD) in CRPF stood cancelled.

Though, cancellation of his candidature was duly intimated to the petitioner in January, 2017 itself, it has taken over one year for him to approach

the court to assail the said cancellation order. The only ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the cancellation order is that the

period of six months mentioned in para 3(h) of the offer of appointment ought to be reckoned from the date on which he was expected to join his duty,

i.e., from 29.07.2016 and not from the date of issuance of the letter of appointment, i.e. 30.06.2016. Para 3(h) of the offer of appointment states as

follows:-

(h) In case you are unable to join duty within the stipulated date (i.e. one month from the date of issue of this order) and apply for

extension within the time given in the 'offer' of appointment, such request may be forwarded to this office. Such extension in any case may

not exceed 6 months from the date of issue of original officer of appointment. If you do not respond, reminder will be sent by this office

giving final chance to report within 15 days, within the period of 6 months from the date of issue of original offer of appointment. In case

you neither respond nor report within the stipulated period, offer of appointment should stand automatically cancelled on expiry of 6

months from the date of original offer of appointment.

The offer of appointment clearly states that the candidate is expected to join duty within a period of one month from the date of issuance of the

order. Further, the para 3(h) makes it clear that any extension cannot exceed six months from the date of issuance of the original offer of

appointment.

That being the position, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of six months should be reckoned on expiry of 30

days from the date of issuance of the offer of appointment, is found to be untenable and devoid of merits. It was made clear to the petitioner at the

time of issuance of the offer of appointment that he must join duty within one month from the date of issuance of the offer of appointment and no

extension will be granted beyond a period of six months from the date of issuance of the said letter. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take such a

plea after seeking one extension after the other from the respondents, who had accommodated him till 29.12.2016.

It is not even a case where the petitioner had approached the court within a reasonable time from the date of issuance of the order dated

03.01.2017 for seeking any relief. Instead, he did not take any steps for over one year for seeking legal recourse that too, against an order cancelling

his appointment.

In the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any justification to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is

dismissed in limine as meritless along with the pending applications.