Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Being aggrieved some of the Mahila-Sub-Inspectors submitted representation for maintenance of a combined gradation list which was rejected by Director-General of CRPF by letter dated 26 th February, 2007. The Director General placed reliance on Rule 5A(1)
(d) of CRPF Rules, 1955, stating that the said rule mandates that there shall be a separate cadre upto the rank of Inspector for Mahila. It was informed that for this reason, they were being promoted separately upto the rank of Inspector as per vacancies arising in Mahila ranks and are not to be considered together with their male-counterparts for promotion and maintenance of seniority. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed writ petitions challenging the validity of Amended Rule 5(A)(1)(d) of CRPF Rules, 1995 for being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

We have noticed the rival contentions, the relevant Rules and Notifications and have perused the record.

The Acts, Rules and Notification issued from time to time which are relevant for determination of the issue are as follows:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (For short `CRPF Act, 1949’), the Central Government framed CRPF Rules, 1955. Chapter III of the said rules, deals with composition of the Force. While under Rule 4A, CRPF is constituted as (a) CRPF (Regular) and (b) CRPF (Auxiliary), Rule 5A deals with composition of the force of the battalion other than signal battalion.
“A. Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the Rule 5A (1)(d) of CRPF Rules, 1955; and B. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to maintain a common Seniority List for SI/GD male and (Mahila) and to grant promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Assistant Commandant at par with her male counterparts who have been enrolled as SI/GD pursuant to the same selection process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission alongwith all consequential benefits.” The Division Bench of the High Court while declared the Rule 5(A)(1)(d) unconstitutional for the reason of being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issued following directions:

In effect we uphold Rule 5A(1) (d) of CRPF Rules, 1955 enabling the competent authority to create separate cadre for male and female and set aside such part of the judgment passed by the High Court declaring the said rule unconstitutional. Having upheld the part of High Court’s judgment, in so far as it relates to seniority list of male and female Sub-Inspectors, we are of the view that the appellants and the competent authority are now free to issue seniority list in accordance with the rules till separate cadres are created.