Delhi High Court - Orders
Const. Balvir Choudhary vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 March, 2020
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2684/2020
CONST. BALVIR CHOUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Ankita Patnaik, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vishal Mittal and Mr.Shaumendu
Mukherjee, Advocates for R-1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 12.03.2020
1. The petitioner, an OBC, having joined the employment of CRPF as a Constable on 31st August, 2015, is aggrieved from being not permitted to be remustered as a driver, on the ground of being over age. This petition has been filed impugning the signal dated 18th November, 2019 in accordance with which the petitioner has not been detailed for the Driver and Mechanic Course No. 45 for being remustered as a driver, for the reason that he does not meet the recorded eligibility criteria for remustration as he will become over age when the process of remustration is completed. Mandamus is sought to detail the petitioner for Driver and Mechanic Course No. 45 likely to commence in March 2020 and to remuster the petitioner as a driver.
2. Counsel for the respondents appears on advance notice.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded and contends that the matter is no longer res integra and is fully covered by judgment dated 28th July, 2017 in W.P.(C) No.10548/2016 titled Ct. Karan Singh vs Union of India and by W.P.(C) 2684/2020 Page no. 1/3 order dated 1st April, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.873/2018 titled Ct. Rajesh Kumar and others vs Union of India & Ors. and other connected petitions.
4. It is argued that the petitioner is still 28 years of age and is entitled to be detailed for remustering in the Driver and Mechanic Course No. 45 commencing in March 2020 and cannot be prevented from doing the same on the ground of becoming over 30 years of age by the time the requisite training and courses for remustering as a driver are concluded.
5. Counsel for the respondents, on inquiry states that though the matter on the aspect of age is covered by the judgment/order aforesaid, but the petitioner does not have a driving licence and has not placed any driving licence before this Court and is this not eligible.
6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents cannot assume that the petitioner does not have a driving licence. It is further stated that the challenge in this petition is only to the denial of detailing for the course on account of being over 30 years of age by the time the requisite training and courses for remustering as a Driver and Mechanic are concluded and if there is any other ground of ineligibility of the petitioner, that is not subject matter of this petition.
7. The petition is thus disposed of directing, that the petitioner, if below age of 30 years at the time of detailing, shall not be denied the said detailing for Driver and Mechanic Course No. 45 for the reason of the petitioner coming over 30 years of age by the time as the training and courses are concluded; however, if there any other reason for the petitioner to be so detailed, the respondents shall communicate the said reason to the petitioner W.P.(C) 2684/2020 Page no. 2/3 within two weeks and if the petitioner is aggrieved therefrom, shall have remedy in law.
8. The petition is disposed of.
9. Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MARCH 12, 2020
afa/
W.P.(C) 2684/2020 Page no. 3/3