Director General Central Reserve ... vs Cpl Sunil Singh .

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 OF 2017 (Arising out SLP (C) No.33370 of 2015)

The Director General Central Reserve Police Force …. Appellant(s)

Versus

Cpl. Sunil Singh and Ors. …. Respondent(s)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10801 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8984 of 2016)

The Director General Central Reserve Police Force …. Appellant(s)

Versus

Cpl. B.S. Siddha and Ors. …. Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Leave granted.

2. Signature Not Verified Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR

judgment since the facts involved are similar and the legal issues Date: 2017.08.23 16:54:18 IST Reason:

involved are identical. Respondent No.1 in both the cases i.e., 2

writ petitioners before the High Court had initially joined service

as Airmen in the Indian Air Force. An advertisement was issued

by the Union Public Service Commission in May, 2010 inviting

applications for filling up of Group ‘A’ post of Assistant

Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force. Admittedly,

the respondents (i.e., the original writ petitioners) had applied for

this post but it now stands established on record that they had

not sought permission of their higher authorities before

submitting the application. It is not disputed that at the relevant

time the original writ petitioners had not completed 7 years of

service in the Air Force. It is also not disputed that as per Air

Force Order No.14 of 2008 and Air Force Order No. 4 of 2012, a

person employed in the Air Force must seek permission of the

higher authority before applying for any post and is not eligible

for applying for a civil post before completing 7 years of service in

the Air Force.

3. The respondents-original writ petitioners were successful in

the written examination and were selected. It was only thereafter

that they apprised the higher authorities in the Air Force that

they had applied for a civil job. After appearing in the interview

they were selected but the Air Force did not relieve them on the 3

ground that they could not have applied for civil employment

without permission of the competent authority and before

completion of 7 years of service in the Air Force.

4. The writ petitioners filed petitions in the High Court. The

High Court in the case of Cpl. B.S. Siddha, held that the original

writ petitioner was guilty of making a mis-statement that he had

sought prior permission. However, taking into consideration the

future of the petitioner and the fact that 7 years of service had

been completed by that time, the petitioner was permitted to join

the civil post. The Air Force was directed to issue Discharge

Certificate and relieve the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks

from the date of the order and the petitioner was directed to

undergo basic training in the Para Military Forces. Thereafter,

the Court also directed that late joining of the petitioner will not

affect his seniority which will be reckoned as per his merit along

with other batch mates. In the case of Cpl. Sunil Singh following

Cpl. B.S. Siddha’s judgment (supra), a similar direction was

issued.

5. The appellants herein are aggrieved only by the last portion

of the judgment whereby the seniority of the original writ 4

petitioners is to be reckoned as per the merit in the batch in

which they were selected.

6. Having considered the case we are of the view that writ

petitioners could not have been granted this relief. Admittedly,

they had applied for the civil employment without informing their

superior authorities. It is also admitted that they had not

completed 7 years of service in the Air Force at the relevant time.

Cpl. B.S. Siddha had joined the Air Force as an Airman on

27.12.2006 and completed 7 years on 26.12.2013. As far as Cpl.

Sunil Singh is concerned he joined the Air Force on 27.12.2005

and completed 7 years on 26.12.2012. Therefore, obviously they

could not have applied for the job in the year 2010 and could not

have appeared in the Examination which was conducted in the

year 2012. No doubt by the time they were selected, one of them

had completed 7 years of service but as far as Cpl. B.S. Siddha is

concerned he had not even completed 7 years of service. The writ

petitioners were given relief on compassionate and equitable

basis and since that portion of the judgment has not been

challenged before us, we refrain from commenting on the same.

However, the writ petitioners who were not eligible when they

applied for the post and have been given benefit by the High 5

Court by treating their case compassionately, cannot claim

seniority from the date when they were not even eligible. Their

seniority may be fixed by considering them to be the senior most

in the batch in which they underwent training.

7. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

………………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur)

…………………………J. (Deepak Gupta) New Delhi August 23, 2017