MUKESH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.09.2011 passed in OA 3393/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner's Original Application was dismissed at the admission stage itself, in view of the speaking order passed by the respondents on 23.09.2010.

(2.) THE petitioner had earlier filed OA 1980/2009 in which he sought seniority from the date he was appointed in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). Before we set down the order passed in that Original Application, it would be necessary to point out that the petitioner is currently working in the Delhi Police. Earlier, he was appointed as a Sub-Inspector with Indo- Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) on 05.07.1993 on the basis of a Combined Graduate Level Examination, 1991 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. THEreafter, he was on deputation to the Special Protection Group (SPG) with effect from 26.09.1996. He applied for the post of Sub- Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police in 1997 and he was selected for that post and joined the Delhi Police on 26.11.1999 after tendering technical resignation to his parent department. It is in this background that the earlier Original Application 1980/2009 was filed, whereby the petitioner sought that his seniority be fixed by taking into account his service with the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the speaking order, in view of the liberty granted to him, the petitioner filed the Original Application No. 3393/2011, wherein the impugned order dated 20.09.2011 has been passed. The Tribunal has considered the speaking order dated 23.09.2010 and found that there was nothing wrong with the same. The main point that arises in this case is that Anil Kumar, who is alleged to be junior to the petitioner, was, in fact, on deputation from Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) with effect from 01.07.1999 and was permanently absorbed on 13.01.2000. On the other hand, the petitioner was appointed to the Delhi Police through direct recruitment on the basis of an examination and he had joined the Delhi Police on 26.11.1999. Consequently, the two cases are entirely different. Whereas, in the case of Anil Kumar, he had joined the Delhi Police on 01.07.1999, the petitioner, as already indicated above, joined later on 26.11.1999. In any event, Anil Kumar had been given the benefit of past service in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roop Lal and Others v. LG, Delhi and Others: Civil Appeal No. 5363- 64/1997.