SUTESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these applications the petitioner has sought the condonation of the delay of three years and 301 days in filing the application for the review of the order dated 29th November, 2007 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner, on the ground that the said order is liable to be reviewed on account of the alleged relaxation of age and other conditions being granted for the recruitment of drivers.

(2.) THE petitioner had sought the quashing of order No.DV-1/93-CC- IV dated 31st May, 1993, whereby the services of the petitioner who had joined as a constable driver with the CRPF in September, 1991 were terminated and the appeal against the order of termination was also dismissed. THE writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed and it was pertinently made note of that the services of 24 persons including the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the petitioners initial recruitment was irregular and contrary to the rules. THE recruitment of the petitioner was found to be contrary to the rules as he was over age by 3 years 4 months and 10 days and his chest measurement was not according to the minimum standards prescribed for appointment as driver.

(3.) THE petitioner has now sought the review of the order dated 29th November, 2007 by relying on the telegram dated 11th April, 1991 issued by the DD (Pers) to CENTPOL NW zone which is allegedly regarding the grant of relaxation to similarly situated persons as the petitioner. Review is also sought on the ground that the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, R.K.Puram, New Delhi had also issued similar letters providing relaxation in the rules for the recruitment of Constable drivers and Constable fitters and that even the Director General, CRPF has issued a letter dated 3rd June, 1992 pertaining to the special recruitment drive for recruitment of CT (DVR) and CT (FTR) from the open market by providing the relaxation in the rules for recruitment. THE petitioner has also asserted that the other persons who were appointed under the special recruitment drive by the relaxation of rules along with the petitioner and juniors to the petitioners have also been retained in the service, whereas the services of the petitioner had been terminated without any rhyme or reason.