Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

A perusal of these conditions would show firstly, that the appointment was purely on temporary basis and secondly, it was provisional subject to the passing of the typing test. It is an admitted position that the petitioner passed the type test on 26.10.1994. Since the date of his passing the typing test, the petitioner has been treated as a regular employee. If that date is taken to be the appointment date on regular basis, the petitioner would be eligible for taking the promotional/departmental test on completion of five years regular service in the grade. This would be apparent from Rule 3 of the CRPF Rules, 1989, which reads as follows :- “ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR SELECTION THROUGH DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION : From amongst Asstt. Sub Inspr. (Ministerial/Non Combatised Lower Division Clerks) with not less than five years regular service in the grade.

3. In this connection it is stated that the regular service for the purpose of Promotion/Departmental examination for promotion to the rank of SI (Clk) to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment in grade only, in terms of MHA OM No. 15/3/63-Estt (D), dated 13 July, 1964 and 16th Sept., 1965 and under the provisions of FR-26(13)(7), Regularization/confirmation in Lower Division Clerks grade in respect of provisional appointees is to be reckoned from a date not earlier than the date of exemption or the date of the test at which they passed the Typing Test, as the case may be.” A perusal of the above Rule leaves no manner of doubt that regular service for all intents and purposes for being eligible to participate in the promotional/departmental examination was five years from the date of the test on which the employee passed the typing test. The petitioner has been treated to be in regular service from the date of his passing the type test, i.e., C.W.P. No. 9424 of 1999 . -5-

26.10.1994. Therefore, it can by no stretch of imagination be said that the petitioner was eligible for taking the promotional test on the date when he submitted his application, i.e., 21.07.1996. The order of rejection of his application dated 26.07.1995 (Annexure-P-4) is thus in accordance with the statutory Rules. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. March 25, 2010. sjks. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE