Shinoj K.A. and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shinoj K.A. and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of as satisfied, the prayers not surviving in view of the respondent's fresh seniority list; liberty granted to seek revision of the ASI (Ministerial) seniority list by representation (within two weeks, to be decided in accordance with law after considering all stakeholders); rights reserved; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the combined seniority lists for Head Constable (Ministerial) as on 01.01.2020, 01.01.2021 and 01.01.2023 could validly place direct recruits of 2015 above personnel promoted via LDCE-2015, in alleged contravention of rule 8(e) CRPF Rules, 1955. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the respondent, during the pendency of the writ petition, itself corrected the petitioners' seniority position and issued a fresh seniority list for Head Constable (Ministerial) pursuant to the Director General, CRPF's order dated 23 August 2024, the prayers in the writ petition do not survive for consideration.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for correction of the ASI (Ministerial) seniority list constitutes an independent cause of action; as the prayers in the writ petition deal only with seniority in the grade of Head Constable (Ministerial), the Court is not in a position to consider it.

Key takeaways

The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the respondent by representation seeking revision of the ASI (Ministerial) seniority list in accordance with the new Head Constable (Ministerial) seniority list; if such representation is made within two weeks, the respondent shall consider it in accordance with law and communicate its decision forthwith, after considering all stakeholders; the petitioners' rights stand reserved if they remain aggrieved.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 jurisdiction challenging combined seniority lists for Head Constable (Ministerial) as on 01.01.2020, 01.01.2021 and 01.01.2023, to the extent they placed direct recruits of 2015 above LDCE-2015 promotees allegedly contrary to rule 8(e) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, was disposed of as satisfied: during pendency the respondent itself corrected the petitioners' seniority and issued a fresh seniority list pursuant to the Director General, CRPF's order dated 23 August 2024, rendering the prayers infructuous. The Court declined to direct correction of the ASI (Ministerial) seniority list, holding it to constitute an independent cause of action outside the ambit of the petition, but granted liberty to file a representation within two weeks, to be considered in accordance with law with the decision communicated forthwith after considering all stakeholders; rights of the petitioners were reserved, with no order as to costs.

$~25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 15894/2023 & CM APPL. 63751/2024

SHINOJ K.A. AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shomendu Mukherjee, SPC with Ms. Megha Sharma, Mr. Aniruddha Ghosh, Advocates with Mr. Sourabh Bhushan, Legal Officer, RAF

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

ORDER (ORAL)

%

18.03.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The prayer clause in this writ petition reads thus:

“In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner most humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court to kindly:

i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing of Combined seniority lists for Head Constable (ministerial) as on 01.01.2020, 01.01.2021 and 01.01.2023 to the extent that it places the direct recruitess of the year 2015 over and above the personnel promoted to the rank of Head Constable (Ministerial) vide LDCE-2015 in contravention of rule 8 (e) of CRPF Rules,1955; and

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to place the batch of LDCE, recruited in 2015 above the batch of direct recruitment in the year 2015 and accordingly issue a new seniority list; and

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 15894/2023 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 1.03.2025 14:01:37

Page 1 of 3

iii. Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is not in dispute that, during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent has itself corrected the seniority position of the petitioner in the seniority list of Head Constable (Ministerial) and has issued a fresh seniority list pursuant to order dated 23 August 2024 issued by the Director General, CRPF.

3. With this, the prayers in the writ petition do not survive for consideration.

4. Mr. Chhibber submits that in the interregnum, the petitioners have been promoted to the post of ASI (Ministerial) and that the seniority list in the grade of ASI (Ministerial) would also have to be suitably corrected in accordance with the new seniority list in the Grade of Head Constable (Ministerial).

5. In as much as the prayers in the writ petition deal with the seniority in the Grade of Head Constable (Ministerial), we are not in a position to consider this prayer. Clearly, it constitutes an independent cause of action.

6. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition as having been satisfied.

7. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the respondent by way of the representation seeking revision of seniority list in the Grade of ASI (Ministerial) in accordance with the new

seniority list issued in the Grade of Head Constable (Ministerial).

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 15894/2023 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 1.03.2025 14:01:37

Page 2 of 3

8. If any such representation is made within a period of two weeks, the respondent would consider it in accordance with law and take a decision which would be communicated forthwith to the petitioner, after considering all stakeholders, in accordance with law.

9. Needless to say, should the petitioners continue to remain aggrieved, their rights in law shall stand reserved.

10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

MARCH 18, 2025 /yg

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 15894/2023 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 1.03.2025 14:01:37

Page 3 of 3