AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—At the outset we may note that in terms of the order dated 17.3.2009 file of WP(C) No. 2280/1996 has been sent in Court today.
The said matter relates to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and has no concern with the issue raised in the instant writ petition.
Thus, the instant writ petition is being decided and file of WP(C) No. 2280/1996 is being returned to the branch.
The prayers made in the writ petition are as under:
(a) declare that the EDP Cell and the General Duty Cadre are two different Wings/Branches within the CRPF and in the matter of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector/Auditor in the EDP Cell the said test is not required to be passed;
(b) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the direction contained in the letter dated 16.4.1990 requiring the petitioners to pass the ''D'' List Test so as to be considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector/Auditor in the EDP Cadre of the CRPF;
(c) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ, direction or order in the nature of commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion as Sub Inspectors/Auditors in the EDP Cell without their having to pass ''D'' List Test/Course;
(d) direct the respondents to specifically consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Sub Inspectors/Auditors.
(e) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling upon the respondents not to insist on the petitioners having to pass the said test for being considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector/Auditors in the EDP Cell;
(f) allow the writ petition with costs against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
It is the case of the petitioners that having been appointed as Head Constable in the EDP Cell (Electronic Data Processing Cell) of CRPF they are entitled to be promoted to the next higher post of Sub Inspector in the EDP Cell and that for such promotion they cannot be compelled to pass the ''D'' List Test prescribed for Head Constables in the general duty branch of CRPF.
As per the petitioners, with the advent of computerization an EDP Cell was created in the CRPF pursuant to a sanction granted by the Government of India (Annexure-A) on 10.10.1972. Three posts of head constables, two posts of Sub Inspector, one post of Inspector and one post of Deputy Superintendent were created in the EDP Cell.
On 16.10.1972, an advertisement was issued to fill up the seven afore-noted posts and in response thereto the petitioners applied for being considered for appointment to the post of head constable and the petitioners were selected. Appointment letter was issued to petitioner No. 1 on 15.3.1973. Appointment letter was issued to petitioner No. 2 on 6.4.1973.
On 24.10.1975, eight more posts of Sub Inspector in the EDP Cell were sanctioned.
The first and foremost grievance raised is that rather than promoting the petitioners to the newly created posts of Sub Inspectors, vide office order dated 3.1.1976 the respondents sought to fill up the said posts by inviting applications from UDCs/LDCs in the general cadre of CRPF. Thereafter, the respondents selected six persons from the clerical cadre in the general wing of CRPF which according to the petitioners resulted in a denial of fair opportunity to the petitioners for being employed as Sub Inspectors. As per the petitioners, in the year 1979 and the year 1981 appointments were made to the post of Sub Inspector in the EDP cadre from the Personnel in the general clerical cadre of CRPF thereby depriving the petitioners the right to be appointed as Sub Inspectors in the EDP Cadre in the year 1979 and 1981.
According to the petitioners, they made various representations pointing out that the EDP Cadre was a separate cadre and promotions within the cadre be made by excluding persons in the general clerical cadre of CRPF, but to no avail. Finally, on 17.3.1980 the petitioners were called upon to attend the ''D'' Listing Service Cadre Course if they were desirous of being promoted as Sub Inspectors.
In respect of the office order dated 17.3.1980, the grievance of the petitioners is that being experts at operating computers, they stood no chance of clearing the ''D'' Listing Service Cadre Course which was designed for regular head constables.
The petitioners proceeded on deputation as Sub Inspectors in the UP Police Computing Centre in March 1983 and were repatriated on 15.9.1987 but were made to join as head constables.
As per the petitioners in other para military forces a separate cadre in the EDP Cell has been created, but not in CRPF.
In para 18 of the writ petition, the petitioners have specifically pleaded as under:
The petitioners state that in the matter of making appointments from GD Personnel, no recruitment rules had been framed, no instructions governing appointments were issued, no promotion and other conditions of service were formulated by the authorities concerned and appointments and promotion were made arbitrarily, completely ignoring the basic rules/principles of service jurisprudence and the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners, on being questioned as to what are the petitioners doing as of today, informs that the petitioners have since left service under CRPF and are gainfully employed elsewhere.
When questioned, as to what meaningful relief can be granted to the petitioners today, learned Counsel urges that a declaratory relief be granted to the effect that the petitioners should be treated as Sub Inspectors in the EDP Cadre with effect from 8.3.1976 when six persons from the general cadre of CRPF were appointed as Sub Inspectors.
The premise on which said relief is sought for by the petitioners is that the posts of Sub Inspector in the EDP Cadre could not be filled up by persons in the general cadre.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners concedes, as pleaded in para 18 of the writ petition, that there exists no cadre in the EDP cell of CRPF.
A cadre would require a hierarchy of posts with posts in the lower pay-scales being in the feeder channel to the posts in the higher pay-scale. None has been shown to us. Indeed, none exists.
That apart, the office order dated 3.1.1976, Annexure-E shows that all persons working in CRPF who fulfilled the requisite education qualifications and experience were eligible to apply for being considered to be appointed as Sub Inspectors.
There are no averments in the writ petition that the petitioners responded to the office order dated 3.1.1976. We have repeatedly asked learned Counsel for the petitioners as to why did the petitioners not do so. Learned Counsel has no answer.
In the absence of any rule showing that the post of Head Constable in the EDP Cell is a feeder post to the post of Sub Inspector in the EDP Cell and there being no rule which fixes a quota for promotion, we find nothing wrong in the action of the respondents. If clerks in the general cadre appointed as Head Constables (General Cadre) could enhance their computer operating skills and compete in an open selection process for being appointed as Sub Inspectors to operate computers in the EDP Cell we see no reason why petitioners shied away from competing with their lesser experienced brethren.
In view of the averments made in para 18 of the writ petition it would be difficult for this Court to grant any of the reliefs prayed for.
As regards the claim that petitioners cannot be compelled to pass the ''D'' List Test prescribed for Head Constables in the General Duty branch, suffice would it be to note that the service rule applicable so requires. The said rule has not been challenged. If petitioners desire promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector in the general duty branch, they have to qualify as per rules applicable.
The only relief which could possibly be granted to the petitioners and which should have been sought for was a mandamus to create promotion avenues for the petitioners.
We need not note judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court emphasizing the need for creating at least one promotional avenue for employees. The reason being that in the absence of any incentive and on account of stagnation the efficiency of a civil servant is impaired. Courts have held that wherever it is not possible to create a promotional avenue, Assured Career Progression Schemes should be brought into force.
But, taking note of the fact that the petitioners have voluntarily abandoned service under the respondents during pendency of the writ petition, we refrain from issuing any such mandamus.
Finding ourselves unable to give any relief to the petitioners and noting that the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted we dismiss the writ petition but without any orders as to costs.