The court, although being unconvinced with the facts of the case, declared the case in favor of the petitioner because of its obligation to be bound by the precedents established by the higher court. The aforesaid has been reflected by the Delhi High Court in the case of Manorama Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors [W.P.(C) 1734/2020] which was decided by a single judge bench comprising Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal on 12th July 2020.
The facts of the case are as follows. In 2013 The six petitioners had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.8744/2011 and connected petition in this Court, impugning Rule 5(A)(1)(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules, 1955, whereby a separate cadre for women incumbents had been prescribed up to the rank of Inspector, for the Mahila Battalion. It was declared by this court in a judgment that (i) a common seniority list of Sub Inspectors (GD), irrespective of their gender, based on their entry point seniority, be prepared; and a few other directions were also issued. This judgment was challenged by the respondents via SLP. Supreme Court, though set aside the judgment of this Court insofar as striking down Rule 5(A)(1)(d) of the CRPF Rules, but directed that members belonging to the cadre of Sub Inspector and Inspector will be guided thereby and, “the rest of the cadres will also be guided by this judgment from prospective date” and upheld the judgment of this Court.
It was contended by the counsel for petitioner that in the interregnum, immediate juniors of the petitioners at the point of entry had been promoted as Assistant Commandants; and, ) though in pursuance to the judgments aforesaid of this Court and Supreme Court, the petitioners have also been promoted as Assistant Commandants and given their due seniority but have not been granted the Senior Time Scale, owing to having actually not served the requisite residency period at the post of Assistant Commandant and the petitioners apprehend that owing thereto, the respondents CRPF, in the matter of promotion of the petitioners from the post of Assistant Commandant to Deputy Commandant, will also not grant promotion to the petitioners from the date when their immediate juniors at the entry point were granted such promotion, thereby leaving the petitioners to serve under those other juniors to them in the seniority list.
The court heard the facts and arguments presented in the cases. Inspite of being unconvinced with the arguments presented it was bound by the judgment held in the case of Jay Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India and Dharam Narayan Borana Vs. Union of India. It declared that “Undoubtedly the aforesaid judgments are in favour of the petitioners but we do not find any discussion therein on the question as has been posed to the counsel for the petitioners. What we find is that the said question pits the personal rights of the petitioners against the public rights of citizenry to have a public office of the post of Deputy Commandant in the respondents CRPF manned by personnel who has served as Assistant Commandant for the requisite residency period. Though undoubtedly the petitioners have been unable to serve the requisite residency period for reasons not attributable to them and for the reason of delays in adjudication but the fact remains that the country would have Deputy Commandants, who have not served for the required time as Assistant Commandants. However, in view of the judgments/orders in Jay Pratap Singh supra and Dharam Narayan Borana supra and considering ourselves bound thereby, we are allowing this petition, inspite of highlighting the aforesaid issues. The petition is thus allowed. The respondents CRPF are directed to treat the petitioners as having been promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant w.e.f. 11th November, 2010 i.e. the date from which their juniors were promoted, for all the purposes and to grant to the petitioners Senior Time Scale”