SANJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid two writ petitions were heard together as analogous cases and are being decided by this common order as petitioners of both the writ petitions are Constables (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'the CRPF' for the sake of brevity), all having been appointed on the same date, i.e. 4th July, 2003 after having succeeded in physical efficiency test, written examination, medical examination and interview. Some of them belong to general category, whereas some of them belong to reserved categories, but all of them were appointed on the basis of same advertisement dated 13.8.2002 and the reliefs claimed in the aforesaid two writ petitions are exactly the same and the authorities impleaded as respondents are common in both the writ petitions. The first writ petition has been filed by three petitioners challenging letter no. P-8-3-(SK)/9-Estt.-2/Pairvi, Letter No. P-8-3-(SKS)/9-Estt.-2/Pairvi, P-8-3-(SKY)/9-Est.-2/Pairvi, all dated 10th December, 2010 (Annexure-15 Series/P-156) issued under the signature of the Commandant, Office of the DIG, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur, by which the petitioners had been removed from their services and also challenging letter No. R-XIII-1(SK)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 22.2.2011, R-XIII-1 (SKS)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 3.3.2011 and R-XIII-1(SKY)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 28.2.2011 (Annexure-17 Series/P-184) all issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur by which the appeals filed by the petitioners had been rejected and further challenging Letter No. R-XIII-I(SK)/ 2011-BS-EC-3 dated 28.06.2011, R-XIII-1 (MKJ)/2011-BS-EC-3 dated 23.6.2011 and R-XIII-1 (V.S.)/2011-BS-EC-3 dated 23.6.2011 (Annexure-19 Series/P-224) all issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Central Reserve Police Force, by which the revision petitions filed by the petitioners had been rejected and further praying for issuance of consequential writ directing and commanding the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits and/order for issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions which seem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances stated hereunder.

(2.) The second writ petition has been filed by other three petitioners challenging letter no. P-8-3-(KKS)/2009-Estt.-2/Pairvi, Letter No. P-8-3-(RNP)/2009-Estt.-2/Pairvi, P-8-3-(VS)/2009-Est.-2/Pairvi, all dated 10th December, 2010 (Annexure-15 Series/P-153) issued under the signature of the Commandant, office of the DIG, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur, by which the petitioners had been removed from the service and also challenging letter No. R-XIII-1 (KKS)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 23.2.2011, R-XIII-1(RNP)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 25.2.2011 and R-XIII-1(VS)/2011-EC-2/ Pairvi dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure-17 Series/P-180) all issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur by which the appeals filed by the petitioners had been rejected and further challenging Letter No. R-XIII-1 (KKS) 2011-BS-EC-3 dated 22.6.2011, R-XIII (RNP) 2011-BS-EC-3 dated 10.6.2011 and R-XIII-1(VS)2011-BS-EC-3 dated 23.6.2011 (Annexure-19 Series/P-217) all issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Central Reserve Police Force, by which the revision petitions filed by the petitioners had been rejected and further praying for issuance of consequential writ directing and commanding the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits and/order for issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions which seem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances stated hereunder.

(3.) In both the aforesaid writ petitions their respective learned counsel argued that the first two petitioners of the first writ petition belong to general category, whereas petitioner no. 3 of the first writ petition and all the three petitioners of the second writ petition belong to OBC category and all of them applied for the posts of Constable (GD) in response to the advertisement duly published by the authorities, whereafter they were selected after being found fit in all the tests, interview etc. and after appointment they joined their respective posts and continued in service. Thereafter on 28.3.2004 all the appointees were asked to go back to their homes as investigation in regard to the appointment process in question was undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation. However, the said appointment process was found valid as per the report of the CBI dated 1.12.2004, but the said appointees were not allowed to join by the authorities concerned.