Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment

1. The petitioner joined as Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force1 on 12 January 2008. He was posted at the 29

Battalion CRPF at Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir on 20 February 2009.

2. On 7 February 2015, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant while serving in National Disaster Relief Force2 and thereafter repatriated back to CRPF in November 2018. The petitioner represented against the transfer, citing his own, as well as 1 CRPF 2 NDRF Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8007/2020 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:22.04.2025 16:14:12 his family’s health and other issues which did not allow him to accept the posting.

3. On 24 November 2018, the petitioner had applied for resignation from the post of Deputy Commandant. The said application was forwarded on 26 November 2018 by the respondents to DIGP CRPF, Range Nagpur, vide the following communication: OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT-29TH BN CRPF C/O 56 ΑΡΟ No.T.IX-1/2017-29-Steno Dated: 26 Nov, 2018 To, The DIGP CRPF, Range Nagpur. Sub: Regarding forwarding of discharge application in R/o MS Reddy M. Deputy Commandant. Please refer Digcent (Pers) Dte Signal No.T.IX-7/2018- Pers-DA-4 dated 22.11.2018. Shri Madhu Sudhana Reddy M, Deputy Commandant 02. (IRLA-7571) of this unit is submitted an application dated 24.11.2018 through proper channel addressed to Hon'ble President of India for resignation from service wef 12.01.2019 on extreme compelling ground. Request of the officer seems to be genuine, therefore application of officer in Pentaplicate are enclosed herewith duly recommended for your kind consideration please. Encl: leaves. sd/- (Vijay Kumar Singh) Commandant-29 Bn

4. Mr. Chhibber submitted that the application for withdrawal was Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8007/2020 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:22.04.2025 16:14:12 recommended by the Ministry of Home Affairs and forwarded to the DG, CRPF for further action. Mr. Chhibber sought to characterise this as an acceptance of the petitioner’s request for withdrawal of resignation. Mr. Chhibber submits that the aforesaid application was accepted by the respondent w.e.f. 22 January 2019. Mr. Chhibber has taken us through certain notings in that regard which, according to him, evince a tentative acceptance of the petitioner’s application as being meritorious.

5. We are not inclined to enter into that aspect as it is a well settled position that file notings do not confer any right on a citizen as they merely represent a tentative opinion taken on the file which is always open to change. It is only the final order which is communicated to the citizen which can constitute the basis of a claim in law. A recent decision, which reiterates this position, is to be found in Yadaiah v State of Telangana3, from which the following paragraphs merit reproduction in this context: “61. Coming now to the issue of the date of assignment, we agree entirely with the respondent's stance that the actual assignment took place only at the time of issuance of temporary pattas and not at any point prior thereto. On perusal of the documents brought on record, which are merely collection of inter- departmental correspondence before the issuance of temporary pattas, we find that the assignment process was still underway. The appellant's reliance on unfounded as the same only communicated the sanction by the executive and nothing else. In fact, the letter dated 4-6-1960 brings out the fact that the area of the sanctioned land was to be reduced to 142 acres and 39 guntas and then only was to be assigned. In this regard, this Court has repeatedly held and recently reiterated again in Mahadeo v Sovan Devi4 that: the document dated 28-10-1953