Petitioners sought writ relief for relaxation in eligibility for promotion as Sub-Inspector in Railway Protection Special Force. Court relied on SC precedent to dismiss petition, holding relaxation is at discretion of competent authority and not a matter of right.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI** % Date of decision: February 07, 2024
versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikram Jetley, CGSC with Ms. Shreya Jetly, Adv. for UOI with SI Satbir Singh, RPSF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
prayers:-
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to:-
ii) quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Director General of RPF, Respondent No. 2, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, Rail Bhawan, iii) The Petitioners holding the present post of the Sub Inspector, ad-hoc Railway Protection Security Force may kindly be protected till the decision of the Writ Petition.
iv) Any other relief which this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedBy:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 12627/2018 Signing Date:16.02.2024 10:58:32
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedBy:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 12627/2018 Signing Date:16.02.2024 10:58:32
Page 2
regular service upto April 01, 2017 (cut-off date). The petitioners were not eligible for the post of SI (Executive) as they had not completed the requisite residency period of 5 years upto April 01, 2017. Hence, they were not considered for promotion to the rank of SI (Executive).
“7.1 The learned Single Judge thereafter while quashing and setting aside the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019 has issued the writ of mandamus commanding or directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service, which as such was permissible under Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006. The word used in the Rule 8 4 of Relaxation Rules, 2006 is “MAY”. Therefore, the relaxation may be at the discretion of the competent authority.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:16.02.2024 10:58:32
W.P.(C) 12627/2018
Page 3
The relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right. If a conscious decision is taken not to grant the relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in issuing the writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to grant relaxation in the qualifying service. Consequently, the High Court has also erred in quashing and setting aside the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019, which as such were prepared absolutely in consonance with the Rules, 1990 and Rules, 2006. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court are not sustainable in law.”
(emphasis supplied) 9. The grant of relaxation in eligibility is an issue which has to be decided by the Competent Authority in the respondent’s organisation and it is not for the Court, to issue a writ of mandamus to give relaxation, even though there is no functional requirement. We have been informed that some of the petitioners have been promoted as SI (Ex.) on regular basis.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
FEBRUARY 07, 2024 /ak
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedBy:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 12627/2018 Signing Date:16.02.2024 10:58:32
Page 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled as a matter of right to relaxation in eligibility period for promotion from ASI to Sub-Inspector.
Whether writ jurisdiction can be exercised to direct the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. & Ors v. Vikash Kumar Singh & Ors., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6868 OF 2021Relied on¶26
S. N. SHARMA AND ORS.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
V. KAMESWAR RAO
SAURABH BANERJEE
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
