AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners points out that the prayers in these petitions stand covered in their favour by a judgment of this Court dated 1st April, 2019 in W.P.(C) 873/2018 (Constable Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India).
Learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, points out that the Petitioner No. 1 in W.P.(C) 8765/2019 (Ajay Kumar v. Union of India) had declined to undergo the D&M Course Serial No. 44, and therefore, he cannot take advantage of the judgment of this Court.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners then points out that in the letter dated 22nd May, 2019, by which the Petitioner No. 1 in W.P.(C) 8765/2019 declined to undergo the D&M Course Serial No. 44, he had pointed out that he had successfully passed the other D&M Course Serial No. 35, and further produced a heavy motor vehicle licence. Therefore, he stated that he did not need to undergo the D&M Course Serial No. 44 again, which would result in him losing his seniority by over four years.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners also refers to the fact that by virtue of paragraph 11 (i) (e) of Standing Order No. 3/2011 dated 20th May, 2011, Constables (GD) who have the aptitude for driving but not in possession of a driving licence may be provisionally selected for remusteration. Paragraph 11 (i) (e) states that after attending the D&M Course successfully, such Constables (GD) will be detailed to drive light motor vehicles ('LMVs') initially. It further states that upgradation to driving medium- and heavy motor vehicles ('HMVs') shall be done after these drivers undergo upgradation courses of six weeks' duration.
Since Petitioner No. 1 in W.P.(C) 8765/2019 had already successfully taken the D&M Course Serial No. 35 when he was 25 years old, he seems to have declined to undergo the D&M Course Serial No. 44 because he had crossed the age of 30 by then. The amendment to the Recruitment Rules ('RRs') was only to the extent of doing away with age relaxations for SC, ST, and OBC candidates.
The Court is informed that while the earlier amendment to the RRs was limited to doing away with the aforesaid age relaxations, keeping the requirement of undergoing the D&M Course intact, now even this requirement for the purpose of remusteration has been done away with.
Therefore, the Court sees no reason why the benefit granted to the petitioners in W.P.(C) 873/2013 and batch by way of the order dated 1st April, 2019 of this Court should not be extended to the Petitioners herein as well.
In the other petitions it is pointed out that some of the Petitioners were below 30 years when they began the D&M Course but crossed 30 years when they completed it. It is clarified that this will not come in the way of their being granted the benefit of the aforementioned judgment of this Court.
Accordingly, the Court directs the Respondents to allow each of these Petitioners who were below 30 years of age on the date that they applied for being remustered as Constable/Driver to be sent forthwith, as and where applicable, for the basic training that remains to be undergone. It is further directed that on successful completion of such basic training, each of them will be remustered as Constable/Drivers. Subject to the applicable rules and to their successful completion of the training process, their seniority in the remustered cadre will be fixed along with their batch mates and their notional date of remusteration will be relevant for all consequential reliefs. They will, however, not be entitled to any arrears of payment.
The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending application is also disposed of.