RAKESH SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in refusing him promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) and consequent emoluments and benefits by letters dated 13.12.2013 and 10.02.2014. The Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF"), which is the Petitioner.s parent organization, was of the view that he did not fulfill the criteria for Mandatory Field Service (hereafter "MFS"), as required by the CRPF Group .A. General Duty Officers Recruitment Rules, 2001 and as interpreted by a letter issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, MHA UO No. I.45024/10/2003.Pers.II dated 17.06.2003 and subsequently communicated by DG, CRPF on 24.06.2003 read with letter dated 04.07.2012 and letter dated 19.09.2012.

(2.) The Petitioner is a Commandant in the CRPF, which he joined in 26.09.1992 as an Asst. Commandant. He was later promoted to the rank of Commandant on 29.09.07. The Petitioner applied and was successful in clearing the interview for the position of Joint Director (Technical), Lok Sabha. After 3 months of Field Service he was posted on deputation as Joint Director (Technical), Lok Sabha (subsequently the post was changed to Additional Director) under same pay scale and grade -Rs. 14,300 -18,300- for a period of 3 years i.e. from 31.01.2008 to 21.01.2011. Subsequently, the tenure of deputation was extended for a period of 12 months at the behest of Additional Secretary (Security), Lok Sabha from 31.01.2011 to 23.12.2011. It was again, further extended to 23.12.2012. In this manner, 3 more extensions (of 2 months, 6 months, and 4 months respectively) were sought to extend his deputation till 23.12.2013 on account of a lack of substitutes available to fill his vacancy.

(3.) During the pendency of his deputation the petitioner sent a letter dated 20.10.2011 requesting consideration of his deputation posting, as an "operational post" on account of the job profile including security and collaboration with the CRPF.s battalions. The Additional Secretary (Security), Lok Sabha forwarded the said letter to DG, CRPF, with a comment stating that the .request of the officer seemed genuine. and the same job profile was viewed as an operational post in other branches of Government Service as well. The CRPF, in this regard stated in its letter dated 24.01.2012 that "Further, with regard to notify the post being held by the above officer at present in LS (Sectt) as operational post in view of the duties being performed by him, we have no objection." to the same and communicated this to the Central Government (first respondent herein). Later on 26.12.2012 a request was made by the Lok Sabha Secretariat to the CRPF to again extend the petitioner.s period of deputation, since no nomination for his substitute had been received. This was approved by the CRPF on 7.01.2013, by a letter. A consequential order was issued on 05.04.2013 extending the petitioner.s deputation tenure till 23rd June, 2013.