Gauhati High Court
No. 115150093Ct/Wc M. Lenin Singh vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 23 November, 2021
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010059452019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1861/2019
NO. 115150093CT/WC M. LENIN SINGH
S/O- LT M. RUPACHANDRA SINGH, 10TH BATTALION, CRPF, HOWLY, DIST-
BARPETA (BTC), PIN- 781316, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW
DELHI- 110003
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CRPF
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
CRPF
EASTERN SECTOR
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
PIN- 793001
4:THE COMMANDANT
10TH BN
CRPF
BTC
HOWLY
BARPETA ROAD (ASSAM)
PIN- 78131
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SINHA
Page No.# 2/7
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 23-11-2021 Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sharma, learned CGC for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner's grievance is against the Signal dated 31.05.2016 issued by the respondents, which states that as the petitioner will have attained the age of 30 years, prior to completion of 44 weeks basic training and as such, he was ineligible for remustering as Constable (Driver) in the CRPF.
3. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was born on 07.03.1987 and he joined the CRPF as Constable (Tradesmen) CT/WC on 03.03.2011. The petitioner is also the holder of a heavy vehicle driving license and also belongs to the other backward class category. While working under the respondent No. 4, the petitioner was detailed by the authorities to undergo Driver & Mechanical course (D&M course in short), which was held between 03.08.2015 to 30.11.2015. At the time the petitioner was detailed to undergo the D&M course, the petitioner was 28 years 4 months 26 days old as on 03.08.2015. Subsequent to the above, a final test was held in respect of the D&M course on 01.12.2015 to 02.12.2015. The result of the final test was published on 23.01.2016, wherein the petitioner was declared to have passed the final test. Thereafter, the petitioner was to undergo 44 weeks basic training course prior to remusteration as Constable (Driver). However, the respondents did not allow the petitioner to take part in the 44 weeks basic training course, on the ground that the petitioner would have crossed the age of 30 years on completion of the 44 weeks basic training course. The petitioner's counsel submits that the remusteration of the petitioner from the post of CT (Tradesmen) to CT (Driver) was important for the future prospects of the petitioner, as there were avenues of promotion for CT (Driver).
Page No.# 3/7
4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the respondents have illegally denied the petitioner from participating in the 44 weeks basic training course, for remusteration from CT (Tradesmen) to CT (Driver), on the ground that the petitioner would have crossed the age of 30 years on completion of the said course. He submits that the cut- off age of 30 years would have to be considered, at the time the petitioner was to participate in the training course and not on the date of completion of the said course. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied upon Division Bench Judgments of the Delhi High Court, which have held that a person shall not be denied being detailed from attending the D&M course, if the person detailed was below the age of 30 years at the time of such detailment.
5. The petitioner's counsel thus prays that the Signal dated 31.05.2016, which denied the petitioner from undergoing the 44 weeks basic training course should be set aside and the petitioner should be allowed to undergo the 44 weeks basic training course for remusteration from CT (Tradesmen) to CT (Driver).
6. Ms. B. Sharma, learned CGC, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has to be below the age of 30 years at the time of conclusion of the 44 weeks basic training course and as the petitioner would have been over 30 years of age at the time of conclusion of the 44 weeks basic training course, the petitioner was rightly denied from participating in the said training course. She also submits that though the petitioner had taken part in the D&M course between 03.08.2015 to 30.11.2015 and had also passed the final test, the result of which was declared on 23.01.2016, the petitioner has not approached this Court with regard to his grievance earlier. She submits that the petitioner has approached this Court only after 3 years of the final test results being declared and as such, the petitioner is now approximately 34 years 8 months of age as on date. The writ petition should thus be dismissed for delay and laches.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was detailed to undergo the D&M course when he was 28 years 4 months and 26 days as on 03.08.2015. The D&M Page No.# 4/7 course was held between 03.08.2015 to 30.11.2015. The final test was held on 01.12.2015 to 02.12.2015 and the final test results were announced on 23.01.2016, wherein the petitioner was declared to have passed the test. Subsequent to the above, the petitioner was to take part in a 44 weeks basic training course. However, as can be seen from the impugned Signal dated 31.05.2016, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the 44 weeks basic training course, on the ground that he would have crossed the age of 30 years on completion of the said course.
9. The question that is to be decided by this Court is as to whether the cut-off date of 30 years would have to be applied at the time the petitioner was detailed to undergo the training course or as to whether it should be applied on the date of completion of the course.
10. The Central Reserve Police Force Group "C" (General Duty/Technical /Tradesmen) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the "2010 Rules" provides amongst others, for appointment of Constable (Driver) by way of direct recruitment and by remusteration. The eligibility criteria required for appointment by direct recruitment is reflected in the Schedule to the 2010 Rules as follows:-
"(i) Matric or equivalent from a recognized Board, or University recognized by the Central or State Government.
(ii) Should be in possession of Motor Transport driving license (Heavy Transport Vehicle) and should pass the driving test at the time of recruitment.
(iii) Must qualify Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test and written examination as prescribed for Constable (Central Duty) mentioned in the advertisement for direct recruitment."
11. The 2010 Rules were amended vide the Central Reserve Police Force Group "C" (General Duty/Technical /Tradesmen) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2014, hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment Rules, 2014". As per the Amendment Rules, 2014, the age limit for a departmental candidate for re-musteration from Constable (Tradesmen) to Constable (Driver) was 30 years. Further, as per the Amendment Rules, 2014, a Constable (Tradesmen) having driving license of Transport vehicles and fulfilling the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment for Constable (Driver) would be re-
Page No.# 5/7 mustered after successfully qualifying basic training/D&M course required for the post of Constable (Driver).
12. Rule 2 of the Amendment Rules, 2014 is reproduced below:-
"2. In the Schedule to the Central Reserve Police Force Group "C"
(General Duty/Technical/Tradesmen) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2010,-
(a) Against serial number 5 relating to the post of Constable (Driver) under column (7) for the words, figures and brackets "Between 18 and 23 years (5 years age relaxation in case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and 3 years in case of Other Backward Classes candidates for direct recruitment)" the following entry shall be substituted, namely:-
(i) Between 21 and 27 years (Relaxation for 5 years for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes 3 years for Other Backward classes candidates and Government Servants.)
(ii) Upto 30 years in case of remusteration by giving relaxation of 3 years to departmental candidates.
(b) Against serial number 5 relating to the post of Constable (Driver) under column (12), for the words "Constable (General Duty) are being re-mustered after successfully qualifying Driving and Mechanic Course" the following entry shall be substituted, namely:-
(i) Constables (General Duty) are being re-mustered after successfully qualifying Driving and Mechanic Course.
(ii) Constable (Tradesmen) having driving license of Transport vehicles and fulfilling the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment for Constable (Driver) will be re-mustered after successfully qualifying basic training/D&M course required for the post of Constable (Driver)."
13. A perusal of Rule 2(b)(ii) shows that remustering of a Constable (Tradesmen) to Constable (Driver) can be done, if the said Constable (Tradesmen) fulfills the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment for Constable (Driver) and after successfully qualifying basic training/D&M course required for the post of Constable (Driver). The only other remaining criteria to be decided is whether the Constable (Tradesmen) would have to successfully undergo both the basic training and the D&M course. The Amendment Rules, 2014 has used the sign "/" (oblique) between the words "basic training" and Page No.# 6/7 "D&M course". It is admitted by both the counsels for the parties that the use of the sign "/" (oblique) denotes the word "or" and it does not mean the word "and". In the present case it is not disputed by either of the parties that the petitioner completed the D&M course in the year 2015 and the final test result declared on 23.01.2016, showed the petitioner as having passed. This Court is thus of the view that as per Rule 2(b)(ii), the CT (Tradesmen) would require to have successfully qualified, either the basic training course or the D&M course, to be eligible to be considered for remustering as CT (Driver). As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioner having undergone the D&M course successfully, the petitioner was not required to have the completed "basic training" for remusteration, in terms of the Amendment Rules, 2014. Thus, the petitioner would have to be considered to be eligible to be re-mustered as Constable (Driver), provided he has got all the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment for Constable (Driver).
14. In the case of Constable Karan Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 10548/2016 and in the case of Constable Balvir Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 2684/2020, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, after going through the provisions of the 2010 Rules and the Amendment Rules, 2014 came to a finding that age eligibility has to be with reference to a fixed point in time and there should not be any scope of introducing uncertainty on account of variable factors. It also held that as the petitioners therein were less than 30 years of age when they were detailed to undergo the D&M course, the respondents, i.e. the Union of India should allow the petitioners therein to undergo the remaining basic training and on successfully completion of the same, appoint them by remustering them as Constable (Driver) as per Rules.
This Court is in respectful agreement with the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the above-mentioned cases. Thus, this Court holds that the cut-off date of 30 years would have to be considered to be valid for remustering, at the time of detailment for the basic training/D&M course and not at the time of completion of the basic training/D&M course.
15. This Court also finds that the petitioner in this case was detailed to undergo the Page No.# 7/7 D&M course in the year 2015 at the age of 28 years 4 months. He also successfully completed the D&M course and passed the final test on 23.01.2016 prior to attaining 30 years. As per the 2010 Rules and the Amendment Rules of 2014, the petitioner would have to be considered for re-musteration as Constable (Driver). The question of debarring the petitioner from attending the 44 weeks training course on the ground that he would have crossed 30 years of age cannot be a ground for denying re- mustering the petitioner to the post of Constable (Driver).
16. In view of the reasons stated above, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to undergo the 44 weeks training course and also consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) in terms of the 2010 Rules and the Amendment Rules, 2014.
17. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant