The Delhi High Court, in its judgement delivered on 8th august 2016 dismissed a writ petition filed against the 2009 amendment to the CISF Recruitment Rules 1969. The petition claimed that the 2009 amendment was violative of Fundamental Rights inscribed under Art 14 and Art 16 of the constitution of India.
The CISF inspectors filed the above petition in respect of recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant. The petitioner’s prime concern was the fact that the 2009 amendment reduced the 50% quota reserved for recruitment through promotion to 33%. The remaining 17% would be filled by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).
They felt aggrieved by the fact that a sub-inspector reaches the post of an Assistant Commandant after at least 19 to 22 years and even after that the limited promotional avenues have created stagnation in their career prospects. They felt this to be a violation of their Fundamental Right to Equality and Right to Equal opportunities in public employment. They also pleaded that the upper age prescribed for appearing in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination is 35 years is rendering a large no. of officers, ineligible.
The High Court however stood firm by the amended provisions. The judges maintained that the provisions were neither violative of the Fundamental Rights nor in contravention of the Parent Act, and is thus purely a matter of policy. As per the judgement, the raison d'être of the amended rules is to encourage competitiveness and provide a sub channel of promotional avenues for the young and deserving inspectors and sub-inspectors.
The Division Bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani observed that the rationale for the amendment is that young, laborious, hardworking and talented Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors should be given an incentive to move up the ladder and this would be in the interest of the organization because it would instil a sense of competitiveness amongst the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors who would strive to achieve their best and the result would be the efficiency in the department.
“We do not find the amendment to the rule arbitrary or violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not a case where their right to be promoted is taken away. Hitherto fore, the right to be appointed by promotion was restricted to 50% of the posts. Hitherto onward the right to be appointed by promotion is restricted to 33% with a sub-channel of promotion created through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.”, said the Bench while dismissing the Petition.
Read the Judgment Here