IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6700 of 2004 RAM RAJ MANJHI, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Chandradeo Manjhi resident of village Bhoda, P.S. Jamo Bazar, District- Siwan……………………………………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, C.R.P.F. K.K. Parisar Lodhir Road, New Delhi-13 3. The Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna-14, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Patna-14, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Commandant 87, C.R.P.F., Rambagh, Srinagar. …………………….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Sharad Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Union of India: Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, C.G.C. ------------- 1. 11.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel. The petitioner seeks quashing of the office order dated 3.4.2001 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Patna, by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated in terms of proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1963 and further to quash the order dated 20.6.2001 passed by the Inspector General of C.R.P.F., Bihar, Patna, by which the appeal of the petitioner against the said order has been rejected as also to quash an order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the Director General, C.R.P.F., by which the revision application of the - 2 - petitioner has also been rejected. It is further prayed in the writ petition that a direction be issued to the respondents to give one more opportunity for passing the remaining paper and to reinstate the petitioner in service. The petitioner had applied on 31.10.1998 for appointment to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector (Ministerial) and after being declared successful in the recruitment test of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), an appointment letter dated 23.4.1999 was sent to him. He was subsequently, on being found medically fit, sent to Srinagar in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and thereafter directed to report at C.T.C. Nanded, Maharastra for basic training course. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that he has failed in both the papers and was directed to report to Group Centre, Muzaffarpur for coaching. The petitioner underwent the coaching from 17.5.2000. Even in the second attempt after the coaching, which was given for about 60 days, the petitioner failed to pass the examination and accordingly, the impugned office order dated 3.4.2001 was issued stating that on his failure to pass the examination after two attempts his - 3 - service stands terminated in terms of proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1963. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders ought to be quashed as nothing was stated in the appointment letter of the petitioner that the test during the training had to be passed in two attempts. It is urged that the appointment letter clearly mentions that the petitioner was covered under the CRPF Act,1949 and CRPF Rules, 1955 and thus his service could not have been terminated by making resort to CCS (TS) Rules, 1963. It is also the case of the petitioner that others have been permitted more than two attempts and thus the petitioner has been discriminated against. Learned Central Government Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the appointment letter itself mentions the fact that apart from C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 and C.R.P.F. Rules,1955, the other conditions of service would be governed by the relevant rules and orders in force from time to time. It was further provided that on failure to complete the training successfully the service of the petitioner shall be liable to be terminated. - 4 - Learned counsel relies upon the Circular regarding Test Policy of DASOs (Ministerial) Course (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit), paragraph No.6 of which is quoted below:- “6. Procedure to deal with failures:- (1) Failures in one or more than one subject will be retested in the concerned subjects with the test of next batch. In the intervening time such ASis (M) who fail in the basic training will be posted/attached to respective GC by the concerned IsGP for intensive training and coaching such. Such ASI(M) will be deputed on the table in concerned GC in which he has failed in the basic examination. ASIs(M) who fail in the 2nd chance also, their services will be terminated under rule 5(1)(a) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. (2) Such failures will be placed at the bottom of their batch for inter-se-seniority. Inter-se-seniority of the ASI(M) in a particular batch will be determined on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by them before the selection board and at the final examination conducted during their basic training and seniority fixed as per this merit. It is thus urged by learned counsel that the failure of the petitioner in the second chance - 5 - also, despite the provision of intensive training and coaching leads to the only consequence, namely, termination of service under Rule 5(1)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules,1963. On a consideration of the rival submissions, this Court does not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, the appointment letter mentions the fact that the petitioner was covered under the CRPF Act,1949 and Rules,1955 but it does not say that no other rules are applicable to the said employees except the said Act and Rules; rather the other conditions of the service will be governed by the relevant rules and orders in force from time to time. Moreover, it is settled proposition that service under the Government is a matter of status and not contract and even if the appointment letter is silent on the point, the relevant rules governing the employees of the Central Government would be applicable to the petitioner. The appointment letter dated 23.4.1999 also provides that the training has to be completed successfully otherwise the service is liable to be terminated. As part of the training the petitioner was - 6 - required to pass the DASO Ministerial Basic Course in which as quoted above, it is clearly provided that only one more chance, on failure in one or more than one subject, shall be provided and on failure in the second chance, the service of the ASI (M) shall be terminated under Rule 5(1)(a) of the CCS (TS) Rules. The petitioner having been recruited as ASI (M) in the CRPF, the said recruitment was subject to all such service rules and orders applicable to all candidates. No benefit can be claimed by him if any condition is not mentioned in the appointment letter, it is for the petitioner to aware of the rules governing the particular category of service which he joins. Moreover, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner even if it is accepted that more than two chances were provided to some other candidates. The same is not provided under the relevant Circulars and Guidelines and if it has illegally been permitted to the other candidate and not in favour of the petitioner, the same de hors the service rules and orders governing his case cannot be directed. It has been settled by several decisions of the Apex Court and this Court - 7 - that the benefit of equality of opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be extended beyond the purview of what is permissible under the law and rules applicable to a particular case. If illegality has been committed in one case, then the same cannot be perpetuated by claiming similar rights on the basis thereof. In the above circumstances, no case is made out by the petitioner for quashing the impugned orders. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )