WP (C) 2021 of 2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2021/2010 % Date of Decision: 23.03.2010 Sh.Ravinder Kumar …. Petitioner Through Mr.Karan Chauhan, Advocate Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. …. Respondents Through Ms.Jyoti Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st June, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.1479/2009 titled Ravinder Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors dismissing his petition seeking direction to reinstate the petitioner after he was appointed on compassionate ground and his appointment was terminated by the order dated 10th July, 2008, 18th November, 2008 and 1st June, 2009 on petitioner failing to qualify the basic training. WP (C) 2021 of 2010 Page 2 of 5 Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that father of the petitioner had died on 9th December, 2003 while in service and an application was filed by petitioner‟s mother for his appointment on compassionate ground which was allowed in an original application filed by the petitioner being O.A No.1231/2005 titled Ravinder Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi by the order dated 26th September, 2006 directing the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate ground as constable. After the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as constable. While undergoing basic training he had to qualify the examination, however, he failed to qualify the basic training course despite an additional chance given to him and consequently under Rule 5 of Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 and SO No.16/2008 his services were terminated as he failed to pass the basic training even after availing additional chance by order dated 10th July, 2008. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal, however, relying on the order dated 10th July, 2008 categorically stipulating that despite availing a second chance the petitioner could not qualify the basic training, and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to continue as constable and dismissed the original application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. WP (C) 2021 of 2010 Page 3 of 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was given just one day notice before he was asked to appear in “Police and Society”. This however, cannot be disputed that not once but twice the petitioner was given chance to qualify the examination for the basic training. Despite an additional chance given to the petitioner he failed to qualify and now it cannot be contended that adequate time was not given to the petitioner. Perusal of the original application filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that adequate time was given to him before he was asked to appear in the examination was not raised before the Tribunal rather the plea of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that since the compassionate appointment was made in order to mitigate the hardship of the family of the petitioner and since he was recruited after qualifying the competitive examination, therefore, his appointment was based solely on the economic condition and his compassionate appointment is different than the one who is a direct recruit through an open test. In the circumstances, it was contended that the competent authority, that is, the Commissioner of Police should have exercised the discretionary power to relax the condition of passing all the papers of law which was required to be qualified by the direct recruits. WP (C) 2021 of 2010 Page 4 of 5 The entire emphasis of the petitioner, who was appointed on compassionate ground before the Tribunal, appears to be that relaxation should have been given to him from qualifying one of the papers in which he failed despite an additional opportunity given to him. Though this point has not been agitated before us, yet in the facts and circumstances it cannot be held that merely because the petitioner was appointed on a compassionate ground, he will not be entitled to undergo the basic training and to qualify the examinations after undergoing the basic training. The petitioner in the circumstances could not claim relaxation nor the respondents were liable to relax the basic training qualification even if the appointment of petitioner was on compassionate ground. The order of the Tribunal also cannot be faulted or impugned by the petitioner on the ground now taken by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not given adequate time before he was asked to appear in the examination. Such a ground shall not be sustainable at this stage in the facts and circumstances and in the circumstances we do not find any such illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal sustaining the termination order of the respondent on failure of the petitioner to qualify in the basic examination during the basic training course so as to necessitate any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. WP (C) 2021 of 2010 Page 5 of 5 The writ petition, therefore, is without any merit and it is dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. MARCH 23rd, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. „k‟