Jituram Boipal vs Union of India and Others

S.N. Prasad, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to promote the petitioner to the rank of Sub-Inspector along with all consequential benefits.

Case of the petitioner that he is 10th Class pass which is treated to be equivalent by virtue of decision taken by the authority of Inspector General of C.R.P.F. whereby and whereunder 10th pass from Higher Secondary School or any place has been recognized as equivalent to matriculation examination. Further ground of the petitioner that on the basis of said equivalent qualification, the petitioner on earlier occasion had been promoted to the higher post of Head Constable.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-CRPF filed counter affidavit, contested the case of the petitioner and has submitted that Rule 64 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 has prescribed a requisite qualification for being considered for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector which is prescribed as Matriculation. He further submitted that since there is provision prescribing a specific qualification for consideration of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector, as provided under Rule 64 of the Rules 1955, it cannot be relaxed in any way, and it is incorrect that on the basis of equivalence clause, any benefit of promotion has been given to the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner''s case is fit to be considered in the light of the decision of the Inspector General of Police, CRPF treating 10th Class Certificate from Higher Secondary School at any place has been recognized as equivalent to Matriculation vide MHA No. 6/10/61-Ests(d), dated 11.2.62 dated 11.1.62(B.XII-1/56).

This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted on the ground that the requisite qualification has already been fixed which is evident from Rule 64 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rule 1955 having been inserted on 6.6.1981 which prescribed qualification for being promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector as matriculation, said provision is being quoted below:

"64. Educational qualifications for promotion to the Rank of Sub-Inspector.- No Head Constable, with academic qualification below matriculation, who has not obtained a First class certificate of education and at least a third class English certificate shall be nominated for promotion to rank of Sub-Inspector."

It is settled proposition of law that when specific qualification has been fixed for holding the post it is to be followed in letter and spirit as been settled even by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of R. Prabha Devi and Others Vs. Government of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and Others, AIR 1988 SC 902 : (1988) 1 JT 488 : (1988) 2 LLJ 56 : (1988) 1 SCALE 453 : (1988) 2 SCC 233 : (1988) 3 SCR 147 : (1988) 3 SLJ 140 : (1988) 1 UJ 602 wherein their Lordship have been pleased to hold which has been extracted from para-15 below:

"The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment.

xx xx xx xx xx

A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion."

Applying the said principle this Court has not found any force on the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 10th class certificate is to be treated as equivalent to matriculation which is contrary to the provision of Rule 64 of the Rule.

Moreover, Rule 64 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 having its statutory force same cannot be relaxed by the High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on earlier occasion on the same ground he has been granted promotion to the post of Head Constable on the said qualification, same does not seems to be justified because holding the post of Head Constable, no requirement of matriculation certificate is required as would be evident under Rule 62(b)(3) where requirement for promotion to the rank of Head Constable is he should have Senior Cadre Course and Second Class Certificate of Education, rather it is only for the post of Sub-Inspector matriculation is required as would be evident from the provision under Rule 64 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955.

Moreover, even assuming that any wrong has been done by the authority, same cannot be treated as precedent in view of the proposition of law laid down that there cannot be any negative equality. In this context, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and Others Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 : (2013) 13 JT 469 : (2014) 1 RCR(Civil) 603 : (2013) 10 SCALE 391 : (2013) 14 SCC 81 which is being reproduced herein below:--

"18. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated."

In view of the settled proposition of law that prescribes required qualification under the Statute, no positive direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Issue urgent certified copy.