Delhi High Court
Renu Kumari Panghal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 December, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23.12.2024
+ W.P.(C) 4398/2020
RENU KUMARI PANGHAL
.....Petitioner
Through: Dr.S.S. Hooda &
Mr.Aayushman Aeron, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms.Amrita Prakash, CGSC with
Mr.Vishal Ashwani Mehta,
Ms.Anju Kaushik, Advs. along
with Mr.Prahalad Devendra &
Mr.Amit Kumar, SI/CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
Orders dated 24.08.2019, 20.09.2019, 05.10.2019, 19.10.2019,
29.10.2019, 16.11.2019, 08.02.2020, and 16.03.2020 passed by the
respondents whereby the provisional offer of appointment issued to
the petitioner was cancelled.
2. The petitioner also challenges the Department of Personnel &
Training (DoPT) O.M. No. 9/23/71-ESTT.(D) dated 06.06.1978 and
O.M. No. 35015/2/93-ESTT.(D) dated 09.08.1995 as being violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4398/2020 Page 1 of 7
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03
3. As a brief background, it is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner appeared in the SSC 2017 examination and successfully
passed the same. She was thereafter directed to join the CISF for
undergoing the basic training, which was scheduled to commence on
18.03.2019 at the Recruit Training Center, Arakkonam, District
Vellore, Tamil Nadu.
4. The petitioner, vide a letter and an e-mail dated 02.03.2019,
requested the Principal, CISF RTC Arakkonam, for extension of time
to join the basic training, stating therein that she had been blessed with
a child on 13.02.2019 and had undergone a Complete Perineal Surgery
and had been advised complete bed rest for a period of six months and
was not to undertake any heavy lifting or physical hard work for a
period of eight months.
5. The respondents, vide letter dated 16.04.2019, however, called
upon the petitioner to join the basic training by 10.05.2019.
6. The petitioner again sought an extension of time to join the
basic training, and submitted an application for the same, which was
acceded to by the respondents vide letter dated 04.06.2019, by
extending the time for the petitioner to join the basic training till
11.08.2019.
7. The petitioner again claimed that she had still not fully
recovered and had been advised bed rest by the doctor, therefore, she
made another request for an extension of time vide letter dated
30.07.2019. This request, however, was rejected by the Principal,
CISF RTC Arakkonam, by the Impugned Order dated 24.08.2019,
stating that the offer of appointment dated 14.02.2019 has lapsed in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4398/2020 Page 2 of 7
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03
terms of paragraph 3 of the said offer of appointment, which reads as
under:-
“3. If, you accept the above mentioned terms
and conditions, you may report to the
Principal, CISF RTC Arakkonam, Post:
Suraksha Campus, Distt: Vellore, Tamil
Nadu on 16.03.2019 repeat 16.03.2019 for
joining the post of ASI/Exe in CISF and
undergoing basic training scheduled to
commence on 18.03.2019. In case, you fail to
report to the training centre on the stipulated
date, it will be presumed that you are not
interested to accept this offer and the
candidature will automatically stand
cancelled.”
8. Aggrieved of the above, the petitioner made further
representations, however, the respondents, vide letters dated
20.09.2019, 05.10.2019, 19.10.2019, 29.10.2019, 16.11.2019,
08.02.2020, and 16.03.2020, again rejected the representations of the
petitioner, stating that her appointment stands duly cancelled as she
did not join the training within the prescribed period.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the
counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 5 and 6, submitted that the
said respondents have stated that in terms of the DoPT’s O.M. dated
09.08.1995, the offer of appointment should not be extended liberally
beyond three months from the date of the original offer of
appointment, and such extension may be granted only as an exception
where the facts and circumstances so warrant, and in any case, only up
to a period of six months, after which the offer of appointment would
lapse automatically. The said respondents have further stated that, in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4398/2020 Page 3 of 7
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03
terms of Clause (iv) of the DoPT’s O.M. dated 06.06.1978, an offer of
appointment which has lapsed should not be ordinarily revived later,
except in exceptional circumstances and on the ground of public
interest, and that the same can be revived only after due consultation
with the Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, submitted that the rejection of the representation of the
petitioner only on the ground that as she could not join the training
within the prescribed period, her appointment stood cancelled, cannot
be accepted. He submitted that the respondent-CISF, keeping in mind
the exceptional circumstances with which the petitioner was faced,
that is, of her having delivered a child and being advised bed rest,
should have exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner and
should have granted her an extension of time to join the training.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was not even called upon to submit any medical document in support
of her application seeking an extension of time, and her application
was summarily rejected only on the ground that no extension can be
granted. He submitted that had the petitioner been informed that the
extension could be granted on exceptional circumstances being shown,
the petitioner could have produced the relevant medical records in
support of her application for justifying her claim to the exception. He
submits that the petitioner cannot be prejudiced by the respondents not
following their own Office Memorandums and instructions.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that though there is a power for extension of time for a
candidate to join the basic training, the extension can be granted only
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4398/2020 Page 4 of 7
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03
in exceptional circumstances and in public interest. In the present
case, the request of the petitioner for an extension of time to join the
basic training was acceded to by the competent authority, and the time
for joining training was extended till 11.08.2019, that is, for a period
of almost six months. The petitioner, however, failed to join the
training in spite of such an extension and thereafter sought further
extension of time. The same was rightly refused by the competent
authority as no such exceptional circumstance was made out by the
petitioner.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
13. The respondent nos. 5 and 6, in their counter affidavit, have
explained the scheme of appointment and relaxation in joining the
basic training, in the following words:
“5. That in this context, it is respectfully
submitted that as per DoP&T’s Office
Memorandum No.35015/2/93-Estt(D) dated
9.8.95, the offer of appointment should not be
extended liberally beyond three months from
the date of original offer of appointment and it
may be granted only as an exception where
facts and circumstances so warrant and in any
case only upto a maximum period of six
months after which an offer of appointment
would lapse automatically after the expiry of
six months from the date of issue of original
offer of appointment. However, in terms of
Clause (iv) of DoP&T’s Office Memorandum
No.9/23/71-Estt(D) dated 06.06.1978, “an
offer appointment which has lapsed, should
not ordinarily be revived later, except in
exceptional circumstances and on grounds of
public interest. The Commission should in all
cases be consisted before such offers areSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4398/2020 Page 5 of 7
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03
revived”.
14. From the above, it would be apparent that the extension of time
to join the basic training is not a matter of right of the petitioner. It can
be granted only in exceptional circumstances and on the grounds of
public interest.
15. In the present case, the petitioner admits that she had delivered
a child on 13.02.2019. Her application seeking an extension of time
for joining the basic training was duly acceded to by the Principal,
CISF RTC Arakkonam, and an extension was granted till 11.08.2019,
that is, for a period of six months thereafter. The petitioner thereafter
made general representations to the Principal, CISF RTC Arakkonam,
seeking a further extension of time to join the basic training. The
Principal, CISF RTC Arakkonam, rightly refused to grant extension,
stating that the time for joining the training was sacrosanct and could
not be extended any further. Even before us, the petitioner has not
placed any medical documents to show any exceptional circumstance
for which the petitioner could not have joined the training even with
the extension granted to her. This Court, by its Order dated
18.11.2024, had even granted further time to the petitioner to place
documents on record which could satisfy or make out a case for the
exception to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the long passage of time,
today, the petitioner is not in possession of any medical documents
which could show that she was not in a position to join the training
during that relevant period.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4398/2020 Page 6 of 7
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03
16. We are afraid that in such circumstances, we cannot grant any
relief to the petitioner. As noted hereinabove, it is only in exceptional
circumstances and that too in public interest that an exception can be
made in favour of a candidate by extending the time for joining the
basic training. No such case has been made out by the petitioner in the
present case.
17. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present case. The
same is dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
DECEMBER 23, 2024/rv/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4398/2020 Page 7 of 7
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03