Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a petition filed by an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) seeking promotion for 298 Constables/Head Constables, including himself, claiming that they faced a delay of three years in their promotion to ASI (Armourer) as per the Directorate’s letter of September 2021. 

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Anilendra Pandey, claimed that although a promotion schedule existed for advancement from HC to SI, the Ministry of Home Affairs created the post of ASI (GD) in August 2018, approved by the Directorate in December 2018. Since the ASI post had not been released by June 2020, the DIG (Estt) issued a reminder to finalize the Recruitment Rules. Despite sending a notice in February 2021, the petitioner received a response stating the matter was under consideration.  

Advocate Pandey asserted that 298 Constables/Head Constables, including the petitioner, faced a delay of three years in their promotion to ASI (Armourer) as per the Directorate’s letter of September 2021. The petitioner sought seniority for himself and the 297 similarly affected personnel, effective from August 2018, and requested the promotion of 37 eligible personnel to SI (Armourer).  

Senior Advocate Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, representing the Union, submitted that a proposal for the first cadre review of the Armourer cadre (Group ‘B’ and ‘C’) was forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in April 2018. The MHA approved the proposal in December 2018, which led to the creation of the ASI (Armourer) posts by abolishing an equal number of HC (Armourer) posts. 

Senior Advocate Tiwari emphasized that the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme ensured financial upgradations at intervals of 10 years of regular service. He stated that the petitioner had already been granted the second MACP benefit, effective from July 2011. Lastly, the counsel clarified that the process of framing and publishing the Recruitment Rules was inherently time-consuming due to the need for detailed review and approval at various levels.  

At the outset, the court reiterated the principle that the right to be considered for promotion arose on the date of consideration of eligible candidates unless specific rules prescribed a time frame. “Where no statutory duties are cast to either prepare a year-wise panel of the eligible candidates or of the selected candidates for promotion, no vested right accrues in favour of the personnel to seek such promotion, especially in the absence of the recruitment rules”, the court added. 

The court noted that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) approved the creation of 298 posts of ASI (Armourer) in December 2018, following the first cadre review of the CRPF Armourer Cadre. However, since these posts were newly created, Recruitment Rules had to be framed and notified. The process began with the proposal being sent to the MHA, which raised queries and objections. After deliberation, the MHA approved the rules in September 2021, and they were published in the Gazette of India.

The court observed that the petitioner had filed a petition seeking promotion with effect from 2018. The court disposed of the petition in March 2021, directing the respondents to frame the Recruitment Rules within six months. The Recruitment Rules came into effect only from their publication date and had no retrospective application.

The court held that, in the absence of Recruitment Rules, the petitioner could not claim promotion to the ASI (Armourer) post, even though the posts were created in 2018. Promotion could not occur in a vacuum, and no discrimination or undue advantage was alleged. The court reaffirmed that the upgradation of posts did not automatically entitle individuals to promotion; it had to be per Recruitment Rules and through the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

For Petitioner: Advocates Anilendra Pandey and Ashutosh Gupta
For Respondent: Senior Advocate Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, Government Pleader Abhishek Ashish and Advocate Samiksha
Case Title: Prem Prakash v Union Of India (2024:DHC:9648-DB)