'Two Sets Of Rules For Promotion To Same Post, Candidate Cannot Be Denied Promotion In One And Denied Same In Another': Delhi High Court
Syed Nazarat Fatima
28 Nov 2024 11:10 AM IST
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while allowing a Petition observed that if two sets of rules lead to promotion to a single post, it would not make sense to allow the Petitioner relaxation as per one rule and deny him the same as per another. The Court held that if he was given relaxation while he was appointed to the post, he could not be denied promotion, by whichever mode, if the promotions would entitle him to the same post.
Background
The Petitioner was a candidate who applied to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector [Executive] (ASI) after an advertisement was issued in this regard by the Respondents on 29.12.2022 through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.
For the recruitment year of 2022, there were 706 vacancies. The candidates who had a regular service of five years in their respective posts were eligible for appointment and accordingly allowed to appear in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.
The Petitioner appeared in the examinations and qualified with a total score of 139 marks. The Physical Efficiency Test and the Physical Standard Test were to be conducted at CISF 5th RB, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad from 26.06.2024 to 03.07.2024. When the Petitioner went to have these tests conducted, he was not allowed to participate since his height was less than 165 cms as was required by the advertisement.
The Petitioner made a representation to the authorities and stated that he was recruited to the post of Constable (General Duty) in CISF in 2013 when his height was calculated to be only 163 cms, which was as per the eligibility criteria of recruitment. The authority considered his request and on 03.07.2024, he was called to CISF 5th RB, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad for having his height measured again.
Although he had also explained the height issue in his representation, he was issued a rejection slip based on his height being less than 165 cms. He later submitted another representation which was also rejected.
Aggrieved, he approached the High Court.
Contentions of the petitioner:
The Counsel for the Petitioner cited the decisions in Tholu Rocky v. Director General CISF & Ors. W.P(C) 9085/2011, and Inspector TD Cyril Mimin Zou v. Union of India & Ors W.P(C) 11133/2024 and stated that the Petitioner's case was squarely covered by these decisions.
The Counsel further stated that the Petitioner belonged to the State of Manipur where the height of people was generally lesser than that of the other states and therefore, the SSC had kept the height for recruitment in relation to North-Eastern states as 162.5 cms.
The Counsel submitted that the relevance of height criteria in the LDCE was of no significance since the Petitioner was recruited to the post of Constable (GD) with the CISF in 2013, even though his height was less than 165 cms.
Relying on Ajay Panday v. Union of India & Ors. W.P(C) 1938/2011, the Counsel asserted that there should not be any distinction between the candidates appointed through LDCE and appointments by regular promotion in due course.
Furthermore, the Counsel emphasized that as per its own guidelines, SSC should have extended some relaxation to the Petitioner while conducting his Physical Efficiency Test and the Physical Standard Test, after he had cleared the written examinations.
Contentions of the Respondents:
To begin with, the Counsel for the Respondent asserted that the advertisement gave a relaxation of height standard to the candidates from North-Eastern States, including Manipur, however, the Petitioner did not even meet the relaxed parameters.
Moreover, he contended that the promotions through LDCE and the regular promotions could not be treated equally since the LDCE promotions were extended to the candidates sooner than that of the candidates who were promoted through regular mode.
Findings of the Court:
The Court held that the Respondents did not deny that in the normal course, the Petitioner would be eligible for promotion to the post of ASI. However, it was to be determined as to whether the Petitioner could be denied the promotion through LDCE which was a promotion granted sooner than the regular promotion.
The Court observed that since both the promotions lead to the same post at the end, it would not make sense to deny the accelerated promotion to the Petitioner on the basis of having prescribed different standards. It was held that denying the Petitioner promotion considering such rule would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Court relied on the case cited by the Counsel for the Petitioner [Tholu Rocky v. Director General CISF & Ors], wherein it was held,
“The facts disclosed above would demonstrate that a person of schedule tribe of Mizo's and Naga's community is given relaxation in physical standards and the Central Industrial Security Force (Subordinate Ranks) Recruitment Rules, 1999 provide for height of 162.5 cms. only as against candidates belonging to other categories where the height required is 170/165 cms. Therefore, we do not find any justification or rationale in not extending the same benefit to this tribe at the stage of their promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant.”
Citing another decision in Inspector TD Cyril Mimin Zou, the Court stated that it could not be justified as to why the Petitioner could not be granted relaxation of height. It was observed that if the relaxation was not granted, the Petitioner would suffer stagnation without an opportunity to seek promotion to a higher position.
Making these observations, the Court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Nongthombam Herojit Meitei vs. UOI & Anr.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar, Mr. Sourabh and Mr. Ravi Ranjan Mishra, Advs.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Mr. Shubham Kumar Mishra and Mr. Vasuchit Anand, Advs. and Mr. G. S. Rathore, AC, CISF.
