N.G.ANANDAKRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are constables working in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). They are aggrieved by the denial of promotion against the vacancies which arose in the process of restructuring.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that as per Rule 68 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, cadre review has to be undertaken once in every 5 years. But after the cadre review undertaken in 2004, as a result of a series of requests made by the association of employees, the respondents issued Ext.P5 order dated 27.3.2017 by which re-structuring of Group C cadre was ordered in Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF), as detailed in its annexure. The petitioners point out that in implementation of the process of restructuring, the respondents filled up the vacancies which arose in the post of Inspectors by promoting Sub Inspectors as per Ext.P7 order as early as on 2.2.2018 and similarly, promotions were made from Assistant Sub Inspectors to Sub Inspectors as per Ext.P8 order on 16.3.2018. Even after several months, the respondents did not take any action to fill up the vacancies which arose in the cadre of Head Constables. On the other hand, they initiated proceedings for filling up the vacancies resorting to Rule 72 of the RPF Rules, issuing Ext.P11 notification on 19.6.2018 announcing joint selection for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and Head Constables in RPF under Rule 72. The petitioners point out that in case the promotions under Rule 72 are made as against the vacancies which arose on account of the restructuring or even otherwise before filling up vacancies which arose on account of restructuring, their chances for promotion would be lost or, at any rate, they would be ranked junior to all those who would be appointed under Rule 72. The petitioners point out that they had been working for the last more than 22 years without promotion.

(3.) The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that consequent to the restructuring there occurred reduction in the prescribed number of post of Head Constables from 34% to 31%. It is stated that the total strength of Head Constables in the RPF which was 1511 got reduced to 1421 and therefore the cadre restructuring as per Ext.P5 has not resulted in any enhancement in the strength of Head Constables. Referring to clause 4.5 of the order Ext.P5 it is stated that wherever the percentage has been reduced in the lower grade and no additional posts become available consequent to the restructuring, the existing vacancies as on 1.4.2017 should be filled up by normal selection procedure. According to them, the promotions under Rule 72 is made after inviting applications from eligible candidates conducting a limited departmental competitive examination against 25% of the vacancies. It is stated that 75% of the vacancies are to be filled up under Rule 70 and 25% under Rule 72. It is also their case that the RPF had empanelled 357 Constables for promotion, out of which 110 Constables refused to accept promotion and they could promote only 247 Constables. It is stated that those who relinquished promotion are debarred for further promotion. Therefore, it is stated that proceedings were initiated in the above circumstances, for promotion under Rule 72, based on limited departmental competitive examination against the vacancies earmarked for merit promotions. Producing Ext.R1(a) list, it is stated that large number of constables relinquished their promotions, consequent to which they were debarred for promotion for one year.