CT/GD ANGAD KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to assail the communications dated 30.01.2014, 15.04.2014 and 10.09.2014 issued by respondent No. 2 rejecting their claim for appointment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial), in short HC (M) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The petitioners also seek a mandamus to the respondents to consider them for appointment to the said post of HC (M) on the basis of their participation in the LDCE recruitment process 2012-13.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that at the relevant time the petitioners were serving the CRPF as Constable (GD). The Government notified the Central Reserve Police Force (Combatised Group-C the Ministerial Posts), Recruitment Rules (RRs)-2010 on 27.01.2011. These rules, inter alia, provided the method of recruitment for the post of HC (M). Under these rules, 70% posts of HC (M) were to be filled through direct recruitment, and the remaining 30% by departmental examination from amongst officers of Central Reserve Police Force having three years regular service in the grade of Constable of all categories including tradesmen/ technician and Ministerial. Thereafter, the Government framed the Central Reserve Police Force, Assistant Sub-Inspector (Steno) and HC (M) Recruitment Rules, 2012 on 19.10.2012. Under these Rules, the posts of HC (M) were to be filled 85% by direct recruitment and 15% by LDCE, failing which by direct recruitment. The 15% of the LDCE vacancies were to be filled from amongst Constable (General Duty), Head Constable (General Duty), Constable (Daftary) and Constable (Tradesmen) with five years total regular service in Constable and/ or Head Constable Grade(s) and possessing qualifications prescribed for direct recruits under Column (7) of the schedule to the aforesaid rules.

(3.) The respondents issued an advertisement to fill up the vacancies, inter alia, in the post of HC (M) in CRPF on 09.11.2012. In so far as the posts of HC (M) are concerned, the vacancies advertised by the respondents were the following: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_407_LAWS(DLH)7_2019_1.html</FRM>