W.P.(C)No.5478/2008 Page 1 of 5 9 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)No.5478/2008 Date of Decision : 5th August, 2010 % DAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. H.S. Dahiya, Adv. versus UOI & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Anil Gautam, Adv. for R-1. CORAM :- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral) 1. By way of this writ petition, a challenge is raised to the order dated 24th February, 2007 whereby the respondents have reverted the petitioner from the post of Head Constable to Constable. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are in a narrow compass. The petitioner was recruited into service with the Central Industrial Security Force („CISF‟ hereafter). On 4th September, 1996, the respondents issued a letter bearing No.E-31014/9/96/Estt.-1/426 promoting him to the post of Lance Naik. It appears that the next post of Naik was rationalized as Head Constable and the petitioner was W.P.(C)No.5478/2008 Page 2 of 5 appointed to this post on 30th September, 1996 subject to his qualifying the promotion course of Naik/Head Constable within two years therefrom, that is up to 30th September, 1998. 2. The petitioner has contended that after he had undertaken the said course, he was told by the documents section of the CISF Unit Red Fort, Delhi-110 006 where he was posted that he had qualified in the Promotion Cadre Course. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioner continued to satisfactorily serve the respondents on his duties and has not been subjected to any disciplinary proceedings or penalties of any kind during the tenure of his service. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner undertook the course for the next promotion held between 1st October, 2004 to 11th December, 2004 at CISF, RTC-II, Deoli for promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector. The prescribed part-II service order No.138/2004 announcing the result of the petitioner was issued on 31st December, 2004 by the Commandant, Principal, CISF, RTC-II, Deoli (Rajasthan) declaring that he was successful in the same. It may be noted that the petitioner had made a representation and by a letter bearing No. E37018/RTC-2/D/TRG/2006-1078 dated 3rd October, 2006 of the Additional Deputy Inspector General/Principal, CISF RTC-II, Deoli, Rajasthan, it was informed that the petitioner had been declared qualified in the Promotion Course from Head Constable/GD to Assistant Sub-Inspector/Executive in the firing test vide service order Part-2 No.Nil/2005 dated 6th March, W.P.(C)No.5478/2008 Page 3 of 5 2006 of the CISF Unit, Mathura. Therefore, the petitioner had been declared qualified in the course. 5. It has been contended that on 19th February, 2007, the petitioner was given a show cause notice by his Commandant informing him that his service records did not contain any entry to his having qualified for Promotion Cadre Course for his promotion from the post of Constable/Lance Naik to Head Constable/GD. The petitioner had replied that he had qualified the course and for this reason, he had been so appointed. A request of the petitioner for personal hearing in the matter was also not granted. 6. Without considering the aforenoticed contentions of the petitioner, the respondents passed an order dated 24th February, 2007 directing reversion of the petitioner to the post of Constable for the reason that he had failed to qualify the Promotion Cadre Course for the appointment to the post of Naik/Head Constable within two years of his appointment which ended on 30th September, 1998. The petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents and the impugned order as being based on an incorrect factual premise. It has also been submitted that the impugned order has been passed without consideration of the relevant material and that valuable rights of the petitioner were impacted thereby. It is submitted that the petitioner was validly appointed, has satisfactorily served the respondents and that he has also successfully qualified the promotion examination for the next higher post from Head W.P.(C)No.5478/2008 Page 4 of 5 constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector. 7. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit reiterating their stand that the service record does not contain any entry of the petitioner having successfully cleared the Promotion Cadre Course at the time of his promotion to the post of Naik/Head Constable. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was sent four times for passing such examination and that he failed to do so. We find that such contention in the counter affidavit is however not borne out from the other communications addressed by the petitioner to the respondents. No such fact is stated in the show cause notice dated 19th February, 2007. 8. We find that the respondents have made no objection at all to the promotion of the petitioner while he served in the post of Naik/Head Constable for the period of eleven years. The petitioner is stated to have been transferred to several units and his record must have been scrutinized on each occasion. It is noteworthy that no objections at all to the discharge of all duties connected with the post of Head Constable have been ever pointed out. The respondents have taken the shelter of detection of an “error” in his promotion. We find no material at all to arrive at a conclusion that there was any error in the promotion of the petitioner. The respondents have also completely ignored the material fact that the petitioner has successfully undertaken the promotion cadre examination or appointment to the post of Assistant Sub- W.P.(C)No.5478/2008 Page 5 of 5 Inspector. In this background, the action fo the respondents in reverting the petitioner to the post of Constable by the impugned order dated 24th February, 2007 is clearly illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above, we direct that the order dated 24th February, 2007 shall hereby stand set aside and quashed. It is further directed that the respondents shall take the requisite steps with regard to all consequential proceedings and the appropriate orders in this behalf shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from today. 10. This writ petition is allowed in view of the above terms. 11. This writ petition is replete with abbreviations which is impermissible under the Delhi High Court Rules. Use of abbreviations in pleadings makes comprehension of the matter difficult. The Registry shall ensure that pleadings with abbreviation are not accepted in future. 12. Dasti. GITA MITTAL, J J.R. MIDHA, J AUGUST 05, 2010 mk