Balvir Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.

The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are, that on 6.5.2006, the Union Public Service Commission issued an employment news, inviting applications for the Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2006. The advertisement prescribed the conditions of eligibility, and the candidates were required to fill the application in the prescribed performa. In pursuance to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for recruitment to the Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2006, and being found eligible, was issued Roll No. 001154, and the examination was conducted on 8.10.2006. The petitioner was declared successful in the written examination on 31.5.2007, and was called for physical efficiency test, and the Medical Standard Test, which was conducted by the Central Police Forces, on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs. She was subjected to the physical efficiency test and medical standard tests on 29.6.2007 at the 22 Battalion ITBP Camp New Delhi. After being declared successful in these tests also, the petitioner was asked to fill out a detailed application form, which she did along with all the relevant enclosures, and submitted it to the UPSC on 2.7.2007. On 3.9.2007, the petitioner was asked to appear for the CWP No. 7453 of 2009 -3- ***** Personality Test/ Interview on 20.9.2007, to be conducted by the UPSC, where she was asked to bring along documents and certificates for verification. The petitioner after the interview was declared successful and was placed in the merit list at Sr. No. 207. The total posts to be filled up by the Ministry of Hone Affairs was 380, the break up of which was 150 for BSF, 131 for CRPF, 19 of ITBP, 50 for SSB and 30 for CISF. Out of the total posts, 53 posts were reserved for members belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner being at merit list Sr. N. 207 was, therefore, within the list, to be offered the post as admittedly 216 posts were filled up, out of the 380 posts advertised. In spite of the fact that, the petitioner being declared successful in the examination conducted, she was not issued the appointment letter. The case of the petitioner is, that a gazette notification was issued on 6.5.2006, making female candidates eligible for appointment only in CRPF and CISF, which was said to be a deviation from the earlier notification, wherein women candidates were not to be considered for any other forces and were required to give preference in CRPF, ITBP and CISF. On 27.1.2009 on failure of the respondents to issue appointment to the petitioner, for joining the training at CRPF Camp, she sought necessary information from the Department, as to why no appointment was offered to her, even though she fell in the list of duly selected candidates. Thereafter on 10.2.2009, the petitioner CWP No. 7453 of 2009 -4- ***** sought information as to why the post was not offered under the RTI Act. The case of the petitioner is, that the Director General BSF initially did not give the necessary information by claiming privilege under the Act, being placed in IInd Schedule. The petitioner thereafter received a copy of letter dated

12.2.2009, issued by the UPSC stating therein, that the service allocation for the CRPF (Assistant Commandant) examination was to be done by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and accordingly request stood forwarded to the CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs. On 16.2.2009, the petitioner was communicated, an order passed by the Director (Personnel) and CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 16.2.2009, wherein it was stated, that the petitioner could not be allocated to any force (CRPF or CISF), as according to the merit-cum-choice of the successful candidates, she did not come in merit. The reason was, that though initially the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 207 in the merit list but, in view of the Appeal Medical Board some of the candidates were declared medically fit, and her merit list shifted to 291. The petitioner issued a legal notice and having received no response thereto approached this Court seeking, writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the appointment letter to her, in view of her merit in the examination. Though the petitioner has raised other points in the writ CWP No. 7453 of 2009 -5- ***** petition, but at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised only the following points :- “That respondent could not have rejected the candidature of the petitioner as she was to be considered not only for the post in CRPF and CISF but also ITBP and case it was so done, she would make the appointment.” AND That in pursuance to petitioner having passed examination, she has been made ineligible for taking examination in future in view of Rule 8, which reads as under :- “8 A candidate who has been finally selected on the basis of an earlier examination to the post of assistant Commandants in any of the Forces participating in the Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination will not be eligible to appear at a subsequent examination for recruitment of Assistant Commandants in the participating Central Police Forces.” In support of the points raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that though at the time of advertisement it was made clear, that female candidates were only eligible for appointment in CRPF, and not in any other forces. Even though the posts advertised, were also for recruitment in BSF, ITBP, CISF and CWP No. 7453 of 2009 -6- ***** SSB, under Rule 20, which reads as under :- “20. Service allocation in respect of finally selected candidates will be made by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the basis of merit and preference for services to be indicated by the candidates in the Detailed Application Form (DAF). As Female candidates will be eligible for appointment to CRPF only, they will have to indicate their Service preference for CRPF only. Note : The candidate is advised to be very careful while indicating preference for various services / forces. No request for additions / alteration in the preference indicated by a candidate in his / her application will be entertained by the Commission. The candidate is also advised to indicate all the services / forces in the order of preference in his / her application form for which he / she is eligible. In case he / she does not give any preference for any services / forces, it will be assumed that he / she has no specific preference for those services / forces. If he / she is not allotted to any one of the services / forces for which he / she has indicated preference, he / she shall be allotted to any of the remaining services / forces in which there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to services / forces in accordance with their preference.” CWP No. 7453 of 2009 -7- ***** Thereafter by way of gazette notification dated 1.8.2006 Rule 20 was amended to read as under :- For Read Service allocation in respect of Service allocation in respect of finally selected candidates will be finally selected candidates will made by the Ministry of Home be made by the Ministry of Affairs on the basis of merit and Home Affairs on the basis of preference for services to be merit and preference for forces indicated by the candidates in the to be indicated by the Detailed Application Form (DAF). candidates in the Detailed As Female candidates will be Application Form (DAF). As eligible for appointment to CRPF Female candidates will be only, they will have to indicate eligible for appointment to their Service preference for CRPF CRPF, ITBP and CISF only, only. they will have to indicate their preference for three Forces only. By way of amendment female candidates were made eligible for appointment to CRPF, ITBP and CISF. Thereafter another notification was issued on 15.1.2007, whereby Rule 20 was again amended to read as under :- “20. Service allocation in respect of finally selected candidates will be made by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the basis of merit and preferences for Forces to be indicated by the candidates in the Detailed Application Form CWP No. 7453 of 2009 -8- ***** (DAF). As Female candidates will be eligible for appointment to CRPF and CISF only, they will have to indicate their preference for these two Forces only. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that once process of selection had started, it was not open to the respondents to change the criteria, therefore, the gazette notification dated 15.1.2007 was to be ignored for the purpose of consideration of case of the petitioner, as she was to be considered as per gazette notification dated 1.8.2006. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted. As on the date of making application, the petitioner was eligible for appointment in CRPF, and no other Force. It was by way of concession thereafter that a notification dated

1.8.2006 was issued, wherein female candidates were made eligible in three of the five Forces, where the vacancies were available, the notification was thereafter modified again. As the second notification on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was also issued after the selection process had begun. This notification thereafter did not give any vested right to the petitioner, to claim appointment in three of the five forces, as the eligibility for all intents and purposes was to be seen on the date of issuance of advertisement. On the said date she was not to be considered for any other force except CRPF. The subsequent notification was by way of concession, and therefore, it was within discretion of the respondents, to grant CWP No. 7453 of 2009 -9- ***** appointment as per amended notification, but it certainly did not give any legal right, to the petitioner to claim, that no changes could be made thereafter, as the right of the petitioner was not prejudicially affected by change, as originally claim was to be considered in the cader of CRPF only. The case of the petitioner was duly considered not only in CRPF but also in CISF, but she could not come in merit. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, deserves to be rejected. There is no force in the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Rule 8 can not be read to debar the petitioner for taking further examination. On correct interpretation of Rule 8, the only conclusion which can be drawn is, that the persons who have been finally selected for appointment, but fail to join, they would be ineligible for further examination, but not the persons who do not come in merit for appointment. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to take up examination in the Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) in future. This writ petition is disposed off in the terms referred to above, with no order as to costs.

22.09.2010 'sp' (VINOD K. SHARMA) JUDGE