Can't Revisit Promotion After 9 Years Of Service: Delhi High Court Allows Ancillary Staff To Continue On Head Constable Post

The Delhi High Court while allowing a Constable (Water Carrier), an Ancillary Staff member to continue at the post of Head Constable observed that the his promotion can't be revisited after nine years of service.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking quashing of the order whereby his rank was reverted and revival of his promotion as Head Constable.

The Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed, "We are of the opinion that it was ex facie unconscionable for the respondents, having promoted the petitioner as Head Constable and having extracted work from the petitioner as Head Constable for over nine years, to suddenly have a change of perception and reconsider the petitioner’s eligibility for promotion as Head Constable – an exercise which had taken place nine years prior thereto. Even in equity, therefore, the petitioner would clearly be entitled to relief."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Abhishek Usha Singh, while the Respondent was represented by Senior Panel Counsel Vikrant N. Goyal.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was promoted as Head Constable in 2011 and more than nine years after that order was passed, during which period the Petitioner served as Head Constable, the impugned order came to be passed stripping the Petitioner from his promotion.

Senior Counsel for the State averred that the Petitioner was only ancillary staff as Constable (Water Carrier) and that he was, therefore, not eligible for promotion as Head Constable on the date when he was considered by the concerned Selection Committee. He submitted that his qualifying service of eight years for promotion as Head Constable would commence only from the date when he was appointed as Constable (Exe.), which was November 01, 2007 as he had erroneously been considered and promoted as Head Constable, the decision had to be reversed.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the word used is “Constables” and so long as the rules remain as they are, every Constable would be entitled to be considered for such promotion.

It stated that the Counsel for the State was unable to state that a separate cadre of Constable (Water Carrier) was in existence, or that Constables (Water Carrier) had any other avenues of promotion and nor is it the Respondents’ case that the post of Constable (Water Carrier) is a feeder grade, or otherwise hierarchically subordinate, to the post of Constable (Exe).

"....the respondents themselves apparently understood Schedule IV to the RPF Rules as entitling all Constables, who had completed eight years as Constable, to be eligible for promotion as Head Constable (Exe), when they considered the petitioner for promotion in 2011 and promoted him as Head Constable. That, in fact, is what the Schedule itself specifically provides," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Sita Ram Meena vs. Union of India And Ors.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Abhishek Usha Singh, Advocate Deeksha Saggi, Advocate Rituparn Uniyal

Respondent- Senior Panel Counsel Vikrant N. Goyal, Advocate Sumit Goswami, Advocate Arun Kumar

Click here to read/ download Order