CONFIDENTIAL Publication of Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Delhi Police As on 01.07.2017For the Purpose of Their
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MSO BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI 110002. Telephone No. 011-23762616 Extn. 30105. CONFIDENTIAL Subject: - Publication of Integrated Seniority list of Inspectors of Delhi Police as on 01.07.2017for the purpose of their appointment to the Entry Grade of DANIPS. In continuation to this Hdqrs. U.O. No. 41294-393/CB-I/PHQ, dated 14.07.2017 vide which this Hdqrs. has published a provisional integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Delhi Police as on 01.07.2017 and the representations, if any, were also invited. During the process of receiving of representations, some of the Inspectors filed an O.A. No. 3507/2017 - Surender Singh & Ors. Vs. UOl & Ors. in the Hon'ble CAT without awaiting the outcome of their representations pending in this Hdqrs. Now, the said O.A. has been dismissed by the Hon'ble CAT vide judgement dated 24.08.2018. Accordingly, the representations/objections received from Inspectors, including the applicants in the above said O.A., are examined/decided as under for the purpose of issuance of integrated seniority list of Inspectors of Delhi Police: - 81-Inspectors whose names mentioned in the enclosed list at Annexure-A have raised more or less similar objections. The gist of their objections is as under:- 1. They have objected against the grant of consequential seniority to SC/ST category candidates who got accelerated promotion in the rank of Inspector by virtue of rule of reservation in promotion. In support of their submissions, they have referred different judgements, including thejudgement in M Nagaraja case delivered by the Hon 'ble Apex Court on 19.10.2006. 2. They have objected that the Inspectors of Women, Ministerial and Stenographers cadre who were junior to them in the rank of Sub-Inspector in their respective cadre but have been placed above them in theprovisional integrated seniority list. 3. They have also stressed upon to prepare separate seniority list of Inspectors of different cadres instead of integrated seniority list interposing therein the names of Inspectors of different cadres in terms of DOPT's O'M. No.200JJ/112008-Estt.(D) dated ll.ll.201 O. The point-wise examination of the above objections are as under: - I. The issue of grant of benefit of consequential seniority to the Inspectors of SC/ST category who got accelerated promotion by virtue of rule of reservation has already been explained in this Hdqrs. U.0. under reference. It was mentioned in the said u.o. that the same is subject to final outcome ofRA NO.I00/207/2016 in O.A. No.4383/2015 - Kirori Lal Yadav & Os. Vis UOI & Ors. which is still pending adjudication in the Hon'ble CAT. Furthermore, DOPT vide its latest OM No. 36012/11/20 16-Estt.(Res.-I) (Pt-I1), dated 15.06.2018 directed that the cadre controlling authorities of Central Government Ministries, Departments and Union Territories are to carry out promotions in accordance with the directions of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court mentioned in the OM based on existing seniority/select lists and such promotions shall be subject to further orders which may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 2. In this regard it is stated that the seniority of promotee officer is determined in the order of their selection for such promotion. Therefore, the provisional seniority list issued vide U .0. dated 14.07.2017 has been prepared on the basis of their date of regular promotion in the rank of Inspector. This anology is being followed by the department right from the inception of practice of issuance of integrated seniority of Inspectors in Delhi Police. 3. It is stated that in the year 1998,31 Male Inspectors (Executive) ofOelhi Police filed an O.A. No. 145411998 before the Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the concept of the department in publishing common/combined seniority lists of Inspectors of Executive, Women (Executive), Ministerial, Stenographer etc. on various grounds and claimed that separate seniority list of Inspectors of different cadres should be prepared instead of interposing them in a common/combined seniority list. This O.A. was dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide judgement dated 11.05.2001. The Inspectors being aggrieved with the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal as contained in judgement dated 11.05.200 I approached the Hon'ble High Court ofOelhi by way of filing a CWP No. 7721/2001 titled as Shri S.S. Yadav & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. The Hon'ble High Court did not find any merit in the case and affirmed the Hon'ble Tribunal's judgement by dismissing the CWP vide order dated 24.01.2002. Furthermore, this issue has again been argued in the O.A. No. 3507/2017 - Surender Singh & Ors. Vis UOI &- Ors. in the Hon'ble CAT. However, the Hon'ble CAT has dismissed the O.A. vide order dated 24.08.2018. Insprs. Kailash Singh, No.D-I1622,Rahul Kumar Singh, No.D-1I690,and Pawan Kumar, No.D• I1623 The above 03 Inspectors have submitted their grievances pertaining to date of their out of turn ad-hoc promotion in the rank of Inspector granted under rule 19(ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980. It is stated that the seniority of the above Inspectors has been fixed from the date of their regular promotion in the rank of Inspector. As regards the request for ante-dating the out of turn ad-hoc promotion, this is not an appropriate platform for making of such representations. Inspr. Jitender Singh, No.D-I/396 He has submitted that his seniority was fixed below the name of Inspr. Chittar Mal, No.D-1503 whose name has been figured at Sl. No.245 in the Provisional Integrated Seniority list while his name is existing at SI.No.275 of the list. He has requested for placing his name below the name of Inspr. Chittar Mal, No.D-J/369. It is clarified that the seniority of Inspr. Jitender Singh, No. 0-11396 was fixed below the name of Inspr. Raj Kumar, No.0-3467 (now 0-1/396) and the same is still intact. It is also clarified that below the name of lnspr. Chittar Mal, No.D-IS03 who retired on 31.01.20 I0, the seniority of 06 six Inspectors (including Jitender Singh, No.0-3782 (now 0-1/396) was fixed vide order dated 19.11.2015. The Inspector Chittar Mal, No.0-1/369 mentioned at SI. No.245 is some other Inspector with similar name who is still serving. 2 Mohit J. La), No.D-I/301 Inspr. Mohit J Lal, No. D-I/301 has mentioned the names of some Inspectors and claimed that he is senior to them but their names have been placed above his name in the provisional integrated seniority list of Inspectors. He has also objected about appointment of Inspectors in the rank of SI (Exe.) who were over/under age at the time ofjoining in Delhi Police. The Inspr. has also argued that even some Inspectors remained under suspension for many years in pac Act cases, but have been shown senior to him. The Inspr. has also mentioned a name of Inspector not confirmed in the rank but shown senior to him. The Inspector has also raised the issue of benefit of consequential seniority granted to the SC/ST candidates who got accelerated promotion in the rank by virtue of rule of reservation. He has also requested for giving him weightage of good work done by him, while fixing his seniority. It is stated that the record pertainmg to the senionty in respect of all Inspectors mentioned in the representation of Inspr. Mohit J. Lal, No. 0-1/301 have been checked and found that they all were senior to him in the rank of Sub-Inspr, which is also evident from the perusal of seniority lists of Sub-Insprs. (Exe.) issued in the past. The suspension or involvement in criminal case has no bearing with the seniority of a government servant once he is acquitted in the criminal case and re• instated from suspension and the suspension period is also decided. Similarly, the confirmation is also delinked with the seniority. As regards his objections regarding appointment of Inspectors in the rank of SI (Exe.) despite having over/under age at the time of joining, it is stated that this is not an appropriate platform for making of such complaint. His request for giving him weightage of good work, while fixing his seniority, does not cover under any rule. The issue of benefit of consequential seniority granted to SC/ST candidates has already been discussed herein-above. W/lnsprs. Ren" Sharma, No. D-I/529 and Shanti, No. D-I1531 Both W/Inspectors have similar objections that their names have been placed below the names of 69 Male Inspectors who were promoted in the rank of Inspector on the same day as of theirs i.e. 16.01.2009. Both W/Inspectors have argued that their DPC for Promotion List-F (Exe./Women) was held on 07.01.2009 while in the case of Male Executive, it was held on 13.01.2009. The W/Insprs. have further submitted that their promotion orders were dispatched by PHQ prior to that of Male Inspectors on same day i.e. 16.01.2009. On these grounds, they both have claimed to be placed above the names of Male Inspectors (Exe.) whopromoted on 16.01.2009. It is stated that the seniority of promotee officer is determined in the order of their selection for such promotion.