AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Contempt of the order dated 10.5.2017 passed in SBCWP No.2937/2015 titled Ramesh Kumar Kuri & Others vs. Union of India and other
connected matter, has been alleged.
At the outset, Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma appearing for Mr.P.C. Sharma counsel for the respondents-contemnors submitted that vide letter dated
6.3.2018 issued to the petitioners, they having been selected have required to report for training prior to their appointment as Constables in the Railway
Protection Force (RPF). It has been submitted that in terms of the relevant recruitment rules a candidate is first required to pass the written
examination and thereafter on selection it is mandatory for him to pass training prior to formal appointment.
Mr.R.B. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have indeed been required to report for training for Constables in RPF vide
letter dated 6.3.2018. He however submits that the petitioners are concerned with the note to the letter dated 6.3.2018 which states that it is only a call
letter and not an appointment. Counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, contempt of the order dated 10.5.2017 is made out as therein while
allowing the petition (SBCWP No.2937/2015) this Court had directed that the appointment letter in favour of the petitioners be issued to enable him to
join service as Constable in RPF.
Mr.S.P. Sharma, counsel for the respondent-contemnor submitted that the relevant rules of appointment mandate passing of the training course after
selection prior to formal appointment as Constable in RPF. This applies not only to the petitioners but all those selected as Constable in RPF in the
written examination. It is absolutely mandatory to pass the training prior to formal appointment. He submitted that the petitioners have not been treated
in isolation and the rule of passing the training before appointment applies with equal force to all others 39 selected candidates to the post of
Constables in RPF as evident from the letter dated 1.3.2018 under the hand of the DIG, Recruitment & Training Railway Board addressed to the
Principal, Chief Security Commissioner/ RPF.
Having heard the counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that this petition is based only on an apprehension of the petitioners and nothing
more. The petitioners have been selected for appointment as Constable in RPF. However in terms of operating rules they are required to pass
requisite training for which they have been invited prior to formal letter of appointment as Constable in RPF.
Resultantly I find no force in this petition. It is dismissed as being filed under an apprehension. In the event of the petitioners successfully passing the
training they would as stated by counsel for the respondents be issued a formal letter of appointment as Constable in RPF by the Railway Board.