Delhi High Court - Orders
Ram Kishor Meena And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 2023
Author: Suresh Kumar Kait
Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait
$~1 (Special Bench)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4530/2020
RAM KISHOR MEENA AND ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr.
Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, CGSC (Senior
Panel) for UOI
Mr. Anuj Prakash and Ms. Prachi
Nirwan, Advocates applicant in CM
APPL.48773/2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 06.10.2023 CM APPL.48773/2023 (for modification of order dated 28.07.2023)
1. This application has been filed by the applicants/review petitioners seeking modification of order dated 28.07.2023 passed by this Court vis-a- vis paragraphs 4 and 5.
2. The applicants herein approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2022 passed by this Court in the present petition vide S.L.P. (C) 41809/2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2023 observing as under:
"Though we take note that the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before the High Court, keeping in W.P.(C) 4530/2020 Page 1 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2023 at 00:07:03 view the nature of contentions put forth it would be appropriate for them to file review petition before the High court by seeking leave to file.
With the said liberty special leave petition is disposed of.
Needless to mention, if the grievance further survives for consideration by the High Court, liberty is granted to approach this Court."
3. It was on the strength of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the applicants/review petitioners approached this Court by filing Review Pet. No.69/2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.07.2023, modification of which is sought by this application.
4. The facts are such that the writ petitioners preferred a petition being W.P.(C) 4530/2020, as they were aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the respondents, whereby merit list of promotion of 61 candidates to the post of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in Sashtra Seema Bal (SSB) vide order dated 02.03.2017 was invalidated.
5. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 02.11.2022 after considering that it is not in dispute that on 08.11.2016, the respondents had issued an advertisement to fill 08 vacant posts of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) for the year 2016-17 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The writ petitioners being eligible, applied and participated in the written examination held on 18.01.2017, result whereof was declared on 16.02.2017. The terms of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Combatised, Ministerial and Stenographers (Non-Gazetted) Group 'B' and 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2011 mandates that 75% posts are to be first filled by promotion, failing which by deputation; and remaining 25% through LDCE from amongst the Assistant W.P.(C) 4530/2020 Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2023 at 00:07:03 Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) of SSB.
6. According to writ petitioners, for the year 2016-17, the vacancy position to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) was 244 posts, out of which 183 posts were to be filled by promotion and remaining 61 posts were to be filled by LDCE; whereas vide advertisement dated 08.11.2016, only 08 vacant posts were issued. As such, some of the writ petitioners made a representation to the concerned respondent to re-calculate the vacancy position to be filled through LDCE for the year 2016-17. Accordingly, the respondent issued a Signal dated 02.03.2017 informing that based upon the recalculation of vacancy position, the competent authority had approved select list of 61 candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) by LDCE, which reflected the names of writ petitioners. Pursuant to the said Signal dated 02.03.2017, vide FAX/VAN Message bearing No. 299/RC/SSB/SI (Min) LDCE/2016-17/1237-39 of even date, the competent authority approved appointment of 61 candidates, including the writ petitioners, to the rank of Sub-Inspectors (Ministerial). The writ petitioners joined in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) pursuant to order dated 02.03.2017 and successfully completed their probation period in March, 2019; and the respondents vide order dated 15.07.2020 confirmed and regularized the writ petitioners to the said post effective therefrom. However, vide order dated 17.07.2020 issued by the respondents, it was informed that the merit list dated 16.02.2017, promoting 08 candidates to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) is valid; whereas the merit list of 61 candidates vide order dated 02.03.2017, shall be treated as invalid and cancelled. Consequentially, the respondents cancelled the appointment of writ petitioners to the post of Sub-Inspector vide another order dated W.P.(C) 4530/2020 Page 3 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2023 at 00:07:04 17.07.2020 resulting in the disposal of the said writ petition.
7. In fact, all the averments made in the said review petition were dealt by this Court in paras 33 and 34 of the judgment dated 02.11.2022, which are reproduced as under:
"33. When this petition came up for hearing before this Court on 24.07.2020, this Court had directed the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to appointment of 53 petitioners as on 02.03.2017. Though we do not dispute the proposition of law already set down that appointments made against the relevant Rules and on the posts which are not sanctioned; and promotion and seniority attached thereto, cannot be permitted to hold the field, however, this Court is constrained to take serious note of respondents' shilly-shally with the process of appointment. Not only at the first instance respondents have been in error in calculating the vacancies since the year 2014, but also their acts have been shrouded with mystery since the joining of petitioners, as the petitioners joined in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) pursuant to order dated 02.03.2017 and successfully completed their probation period in March, 2019; and the respondents vide order dated 15.07.2020 confirmed and regularized them to the said post. Over and above, the respondents first filed affidavit before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2559/2017 stating that calculation of 08 vacancies was incorrect, and so, increased to 61 vacancies; and thereafter did a volte face in the present case to submit that the said affidavit should not be relied upon, having not been approved by SDG/ADG. It is very strange that an organisation like SSB has acted in such an irresponsible manner taking stances as per their choices.
34. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that for the incautious behaviour of respondents, the 53 candidates, who have been subsequently appointed, cannot be made to W.P.(C) 4530/2020 Page 4 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2023 at 00:07:04 suffer. The peculiar fact of the case is that these 53 petitioners have been successfully holding the posts of Sub- Inspector (Min) since their appointment in the year 2017 and after their confirmation and being regularized, have gained good experience and knowledge by now; and also that their appointment are not against future vacancies but is against the 'carry forward' vacancies of the previous years. Hence, we find that to remove 53 petitioners from the post of Sub-Inspector (Min) would be against the principles of natural justice. It is extremely hard for us to turn the clock back and relegate the 53 petitioners to a position, which indisputably stands long relieved by them."
8. It is pertinent to mention here that some candidates vide W.P.(C) 2559/2017 challenged the increase of posts from 8 to 61, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2018. The said fact has been dealt with and noted in judgment dated 02.11.2022 passed by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) 4530/2020.
9. It was thereafter the said applicants/review petitioners challenged the judgment dated 02.11.2022 passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. (C) 41809/2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2023 with directions as noted in para 2 hereinabove and Review Pet. No.69/2023 was filed, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take steps as per law.
10. Interestingly, the present application has now been filed belatedly, after a lapse of more than 50 days from the passing of the order. Keeping in mind the nature of the present application, the contents of the present review application do not appeal to reason. Moreover, when the said candidates/review petitioners who did not appear for the reason that the vacancies were only 8, whereafter the vacancies were increased to 61 and as W.P.(C) 4530/2020 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2023 at 00:07:04 such did not challenge the same in the main writ petition. Such candidates who did not participate and those who were not in zone of consideration, have in any ways no locus in the present application. Moreover, the applicants/review petitioners have not placed any material on record that in fact they were in the merit list of 61 candidates.
11. It is admitted fact that applicants were beyond 61 candidates in the merit list, therefore, in our considered opinion, their right, in any manner, has not been affected vide judgment dated 02.11.2022 passed by this Court. Therefore, we find no merit in the present application.
12. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid position, the present application is dismissed and the judgment dated 02.11.2022 does not call for any interference.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J SAURABH BANERJEE, J OCTOBER 6, 2023/rk W.P.(C) 4530/2020 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2023 at 00:07:04