Sr. Noi' Orders .f IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHT y w.P.(c) ?firrzffi3 AJIT SINGFI MALIK & OS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advoeate with Mr- Ravi Prakash, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain rvith Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocatefor CRPF. Ml Maninder Achrya, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdwa with lvls- Priya and Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocates forR-13 &27- CCIRAM: HON'BLE MR" JUSTICE B.A. KHAI{ HON'BLE MR" JUSTICE ANII, KUMAR ORDE R To 26.05.2005 Petitioners were Deputy Commandants in CRPF way back in 1990 and were considered for p'romotion to Second-in C.ommand. It seems that a bench mark of this promotion was temporarily changed requiring four 'very good' in the last five years' ACRs of the candidate insted of three 'Good'- It also appears that erlier the grading was being done by some other method which was reportedly later transformed/converted into the new grading of 'very good' in tune with the p'rescribed newbench mark. .t T 1 of4 - jb, \5 H.C.D.-l (a) Continuation Sheet Orders About 39 officers were promoted on the basis of ttre new prescribed beneh mmk requiring four'very good'. Others left out made a ggievance on this and pointed out to the alleged wrong conversion of earlier grding nomenclaftre into the nerv one of Vey Gmd'- Some of these officers made repres€ntations and are said to have succeeded and for them Review DPC was held and they were g*ot"i promotion from the date rvhen originalDPC met. One of the agggieved officers, however, chose the option of taking the judicial remcdy of filing a writ in which he raised all these iszues of the anomalous grcsition having been created due to the mid-way change in bench mark temporarily. His writ petition was dismissed. An appeal was taken against ttris order before the l{onble Supreme Court which was also dismissed by order dated 27h May, 1998 on the gnund that writ petitioners approached the C-ourt late after three yers or so. Record shows ttrat respondents thereafter re-examined the iszue on the grievance expressed by some of the aggrievcd officers which ultimately culminated in a recommendation nrade by the Director General of CRPF (respondent no.2) dated 23d November, 2001 asking for reconsideration of the matterand a judicious decision it. This recommendation, however, was over n:led vide communication dated 19n December,2001 by the Joint Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs. Petitioners limited grievance in this petition without prejudice to their rights and contentions on the merit of the matter is that frst respondent's, Joint Secretary had rejected the recommendation of respondeot oo-2 without assigning any reasons- Paee 2 of4 H.C.D.-l (a) Continuation Sheet Sr. No.' I Orders In other words, it is submitted that first respondent's, Joint Secretary and not the Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs had given a short shrift to the matter and had closed the issue and rejected the recommendation of respondent no-z without passing any speaking order- This petition is opposed by official respondents and some of the private respondents on the ground that clock could not be revened after 15 years or so and that the issue stood closed on judicial determin*ion with the dismissal of first rvrit petition on the subject. Reference in ttris regard is also made to the dismissal of appeal taken against it by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Leamed counsel for petitioners refutes that the issue was closed on any judicial determination. According to him, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal of the aggieved officers only on the ground of delay and that the merit of the issue was not dealt with or determined in the order of ttre Apex Court or the writ court. Notwithstanding all this, we are left with no doubt ttrat Joint Secretary of first respondent had on his own zummrily over ruled the recommendation of respondent rro.2, unsupported by any reasons. The matter ought to have been considered trnd examined by Secretary of Minisry of Home Affairs himself as it involvcd the car€er growth and promotional aspect of several officers- The Joint Secretary's rejection of the Director General's recommendetion buries ttre issue under the wraps without any worthwhile consideration being accorded to it. .As no other issuc rvas canvasscd before us this petition is disposed of by the follorvingorder: - wP.(ct 753rf1Q,03 t'- .$' ! I I n Paec 3 of4 - trJo t oAEd t lrvninv rINv ffi gooz'gz/tYw {/4 r_fl..-a)