In W.P.(C) 9387/2020-DEL HC- Delhi HC allows plea of CRPF GD Constables, who had successfully undergone basic training, to be remustered as Drivers (Constable); passes directions to grant consequential benefits & arrears
Justices Suresh Kumar Kait & Neena Bansal Krishna [19-05-2023]

Read Order:NISHAN SINGH AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 23, 2023: The Delhi High Court has allowed the plea of the petitioners, who had joined the services of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Constable/GD and were below the age of 30 years as on the date they applied for being remustered as Driver (Constable) and had successfully undergone the basic training, to be remustered as Driver (Constable).

“ Their seniority shall reckon from the date other applicants who completed 35th D & M course”, the Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further ordered.

The facts of this case were such that the petitioners had joined the services of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Constable/GD. The respondents issued Signals inviting applications from all the eligible Coys to join D & M Course for being remustered as Driver. The petitioners claimed that at the time they were detailed for D & M Course No. 35, they were below the age of 30 years i.e. the age prescribed in the Standing Instruction No. 03/2011.

The petitioners were informed that their request for remustering was turned down as they were over aged and the maximum age for remusteration was 30 years at the time of completion of the course. The petition had been preferred by the petitioners seeking setting aside of the Signals issued by the respondents whereby petitioners had not been remustered as Drivers on the pretext that they did not meet the requisite eligibility criteria, being over aged. In addition, parity was sought with those petitioners, who were remustered as Drivers.

It was the case of the petitioners that prior to the selection, the CRPF Recruitment Rules, 2010 (RR) were amended where-under the maximum age for remusteration was 30 years even for SC/ST/OBC candidates. It was submitted that the respondents had misinterpreted the RRs 2014 and had not remustered the petitioners stating that they will be over 30 years of age when they will be finally remustered after undergoing 44 weeks of Basic Training.

The respondents submitted that a direction was issued that the candidates who were successful in D & M 34 & 35 and were in possession of heavy transport vehicle license, were required to undergo upgradation course of six weeks at CTC Neemuch, provided they had not crossed the age of 30 years on the date of completion of Spl. D & M Basic Training. Since these petitioners were not in possession of heavy motor vehicle license and were not detailed for Special D & M course, therefore, they were not remustered in the rank of CT/Driver. It was submitted that age was no criteria and had no relevance.

The Bench went through the judgments in Deputy Commissioner Of Police Vs. Ex. Constable Karan Singh & Anr  & Constable Rajesh Kumar Vs. State Of Punjab whereby it was noted that that the RR 2014, vide Gazette Notification dated November 13, 2014, prescribed that in case of remusteration, the age of 30 years, with3 years of relaxation to departmental candidates, had been given. The Court also held that when the candidates after qualifying the D & M course, which is a basic course, having undergone the 44 weeks course; they might have crossed the age of 30 years, but it will not disqualify them for remusteration.

“The petitioners in the present case were below the age of 30 years when they applied for D & M Course and so, they cannot be denied to get benefit of remusteration on this ground”, the Bench held.

After perusing  Para- 11(e) of Standing Order No. 03/2011 dated May 20, 2011, the Bench opined that the Constables (GD) who had the aptitude for driving but not in possession of a driving license, may be provisionally selected for remusteration and after attending the D&M Course successfully they will be detailed to drive light motor vehicles and after upgradation courses of six weeks duration, they can be upgraded for medium and heavy motor vehicles.

Noting the fact that the petitioners had successfully qualified the 35th D & M course and they claimed to be in possession of heavy vehicle license and also they were actually never called upon by the respondents to produce the same, the Bench also made it clear that the respondents had not placed any documents on record to show that petitioners were asked to produce heavy vehicle license, which they failed to produce and they also failed to bring any document  to show that condition mentioned in Para- 11(e) of Standing Order No. 03/2011 had been modified or deleted.

“In the light of the fact that as on the date of detailing for D & M Course No. 35 by their Superior, petitioners were below 30 years of age and they successfully qualified the aforesaid course and also the fact that they were in possession of the requisite heavy motor vehicle license, the present petition is allowed” , the Bench held while directing the respondents to pass necessary orders and grant consequential benefits, including arrears, within four weeks.