In The Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2019. in The Matter Of

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE

PETITION ( C ) NO. OF 2019.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Sasi Kumar & others Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & others Respondents
OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION
1. The Petition is/are within time.
2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of _____ days in

filling the same against the final judgement and order dated
28/11/2018 and Petition for Condonation of _____days delay has
been filed.
3. He petition is barred by time and there isdelay of _____days in

filling the same against the final judgement and order dated
21/12/2018 and Petition for Condonation of _____ days delay
has been filed.
4. There is delay of ________ days in re- filling the petition
and petition for Condonation of ______ days delay in re-
filling has been filed.
BRANCH OFFICER
PLACE; New Delhi
Date; 15/04/2019
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING Section- XIV
The case pertains to ( please tick/ check the correct box )
Central Acts : ( Title ) THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Section Article 309
Central Rule: ( Title) NA
Rule No ( s) : NA
State Act: ( title) NA

Section: NA
State Rule: ( title) NA
Rule No (s) NA
I Impunged interim order ( date) NA
Impunged Final order/ Decree (Date) 28/11/2018 & 21/12/2018
High Court Name HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Name of judges JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
Tribunal/ Authority; ( Name) NA
1. Nature of matter; Civil Criminal
2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant; NO.1 ; SASI KUMAR & ORS.

(B) E-mail ID : NA
(C) Mobile no ; NA
3. (a) Respondent no.1 : UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(b) E-mail.ID : NA
( c) Mobile no. : NA
4. (a) Main category classification : 1800
(b) Sub- classification : 1807
5. Not to be listed before : NA
6. Similar/Pending matter : No
(a) Similar disposed of matter
With citiation, if any and case : SIMILAR MATTER IS
DISPOSED OF
(b) Similar pending matter : NO SIMILIARMATTER IS PENDING

With case details.
7. Criminal matters : NA.

(a) Whether accussed/ convict has surrendered : yes no
(b) FIR NO : NA
(C ) Police Station : NA
(d) Sentence Awarded : NA
(e) Period of sentence under : NA

8. Land acquisiation matters : NA
(a) Date of section 4 notification : NA

(b) Date of section 6 notification : NA
(c) Date of section 17 notification : NA
9. Tax matters : NA
10. Special category ( first prtitioner/appellant only ) : NA
Senior citizen -65 years SC/ST WOMAN/CHILD
DISABLED LEGAL AID CASE IN CUSTODY
11. Vehicle number ( in case of motor accident) : NA

SYNOPSIS
That the main issue in this special leave petition whether
injustice was done with the petitioners by appointing
authority to throw out the petitioners from the process
of absorption due to having more experience in CBI as a
deputanist , contrary to recruitment rules and malafiedly
kept pending the process of absorption more than 9
month and cleverly complete the process of absorption
within one month after the order of their repatriation to
parent department to all the petitioners.
That the petitioners was not consider for absorption
whereas many other employees absorbed in CBI who are
deputed in CBI more than seven years which is clear
violation of the principal of parity.
That the main condition for absortion is that employee
must be on deputation at time of absorption.
That the condition of deputation of maximum seven
years is not manadatory but ordinarlly may be more than
seven years.
That the Petitioners herein are Constables from
various departments of the Central armed forces
who had been sent on deputation to the Respondent
No…, i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation and had
been granted
extension several times on the Deputation due to their
excellent service records as Deputations.
That over 500 vacancies of Constable (GD)'s in

Central Bureau of Investigation were lying vacant the
Respondents assured them in the said posts. Due to the
extensions and the oral assurances by the Respondents
the Petitioners were under an impression that they
would be considered for absorption and created a
legitimate expectation .
That while the Petitioners were on Deputation their
turn for promotions in their parent cadre had come up
but they gave up due to the assurance given by
the Respondents.
That in terms of CBI (Group 'B' and Group C

Executive Posts Recruitment Rules, 2013, Respondent
no. 2 Issued circular dated 27.10.2016 for being
absorbed in CBI. That vide letter dated 31.10.2016
circular dated 27.10.2016 was modified to the extent
that educational qualification to include 10th pass
candidate also and to
specify those persons who had completed two years of
service as on 31.03.2016 will only be considered.
That Respondent No.2 without giving any

clarifications or reason issued an order on 25.05.2017
and ordered that with immediate effect the circulars
dated 27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 is withdrawn.
That respondents herein vide circular dated

11.07.2017 called fresh applications for absorptions but
the said circular is bad in law for the reason that as per
CBI (Group '‘B’ and Group ‘C’ Executive Posts
Recruitment Rules, 2013 there is no bar on absorbing
persons who had completed 7 years in CBI, but contrary
to the recruitment rules, the respondents have
themselves brought the said requirement to oust the
consideration of the Petitioners herein.
Being aggrieved by the letter dated 25.05.2017 and
circular dated 11.07.2017 the Petitioners filed the Writ
Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court and the same
were dismissed stating that circulars dated 27.10.2016
and 31.10.2016 were contrary to the CBI (Group ‘B’ and
Group ‘C’ Executive Posts Recruitment Rules, 2013.
It is respectfully submitted that letter date 25.05.2017

is a non speaking order and is arbitrary whimsical and
violates the Principles of natural justice .
The Petitioners above named is filing the present

petition seeking special leave to appeal against the
common final judgment and order dated 28.11.2018 in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6138 of 2017 and order dated
21.12.2018 in Review Petition (Civil) No. 464 of 2018 in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6138 of 2017 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi wherein the
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss both the
Petitions filed by the Petitioners herein.
The following questions of law arise for consideration
by this Hon'ble Court –
A. Whether the appointing authority can be imposed
the condition of maximum experience whereas
recruitment rules allowed redeputation after seven years
?
B.Whether maximum seven years condition of
deputation can be imposed for absorption ?
C.Whether maximum seven years condition of

deputation is manadatry for deputation whereas
?
D Whether any violation of the principal of parity
whereas many employees absorbed in CBI who are
having more than seven years deputation in CBI ?
E. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in
passing the impugned order without considering
that withdrawal of Circular dated 27.10.2016
(Subsequently modified on 31.10.2016) vide
letter dated 25.05.2017 without giving any
reasons is a non speaking order, arbitrary and
unsustainable in the eye of law?
F. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in

passing the impugned order without
considering that the Petitioners are eligible
for absorption and they have right of being
considered for absorption as per CBI (Group
'B’ and Group 'C’ Executive Posts Recruitment
Rules, 2013?
G. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified
In passing the impugned orders without
Considering that Petitioners have legitimate
expectations for being considered for
absorption in light of the assurance given to
them by the authorities?
Hence this Special Leave Petition.
LIST OF DATES
The Petitioners in the present special

leave petition are constables from various
departments of the Central Armed Police
Force who had been sent on Deputation
to the Central Bureau of Investigation,
Respondent No.2 (For brevity ‘CBI) on a
valid invitation from their respective
parent cadre for an initial period of 3 years.
It is pertinent to note that over 500

vacancies of Constable (GD)'s in CBI
were lying vacant.
04.07.2013.
The Petitioners herein

deputation/absorption in CBL are
governed by CBI (Group ‘B’ and Group 'C’
Executive Post) Recruitment Rules, 2013.
A true copy of the relevant extract of the

Notification issued by the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions
dated 04.07.2013 is annexed hereto and
marked as ANNEXURE P-1 (Pages )
29.07.2015 That as this Hon'ble Court directed

CBI for filling up the vacancies, consequently
CBI Director convened a meeting and it
was decided that a committee may be
constituted for filling up the vacant
vacancies by conducting the process of
absorption.
A true copy of the minutes of meeting of
DCBI's dated 29.07.2015 is annexed
here to and marked as ANNEXURE P-2
(Pages)
It is pertinent to mention here that as per
the recruitment rules of the CBI; post of
Constable (GD) shall be filled up by two
sources, i.e. Deputation and absorption,
50% is required to be filled by Deputation and
rest 50% are to be filled by absorption.
That it is respectfully submitted that due to the

excellent performances the petitioners herein
were given extension twice. That due to the
extensions granted to the Petitioners and the
oral assurances given, the Petitioners were
under an impression that they would be
considered for absorption and
created a legitimate expectation in their favor.
It is pertinent to mention herein that while the
Petitioners herein were on Deputation their
turn for promotions in their parent cadre had
come up but due to the assurance given by the
respondents they gave up their promotion in
the parent cadre. It Is submitted that the
Petitioners gave their willingness for promotions
despite their juniors having been promoted
they continued to serve in CBI with the belief
that they will be absorbed.
27.10.2016 .
On 27.10.2016 the Respondents issued a
notification calling from eligible candidates for
applications for being
absorbed in CBI. A true copy of notification

bearing No.DP/PERS111/2016/3390/A
31016/1/ 2016 dated 27.10.2016 issued by
Central Bureau of Investigation, Government of
India,
Administration Division calling for absorption
of constables in CBI IS annexed hereto and
marked
as ANNEXURE P-3 (Pages ) As per
notification dated 27.10.2016,Constables was
required to fulfill the following conditions:
(1) Constables must have a minimum education

qualifications of 12th class pass or equivalent.
(2) Constables must be drawing pay in the pre-

revised pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade
Pay of Rs.2000/- and revised pay scale of
Rs.21700-69100 corresponding to Level 3 of 7th
CPC. Constables who are from CPOs and are in
receipt of higher pay scale under ACP scheme
are also eligible for absorption.
3) Constables drawing pay in the pre-revised

pay scales higher than Rs.5200-20200
with Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- and revised
pay scale of Rs.21700-69100
corresponding to Level 3 of 7th CPC, in
their parent .
Organizations are not eligible for absorption
and their applications/ recommendations
should not be sent.
(4) It is also made clear that service rendered

by Constables in State Police
Organisations, will not be counted for
grant of financial up gradation under ACP
scheme on absorption in CBI. The service
after absorption in CBI is to be taken into
account for the purpose of determining
the reckonable service for financial up
gradation under ACP scheme.
(5) The performance of Constables who will

be considered and absorbed in CBI, will
be monitored for a period
of 2 years and if their services are not
found satisfactory, they may be
considered for de-absorption and
repatriation to parent department.
(6) Constables who have completed their 2

years of deputation in CBI as on31.3.2016
and are still serving in CBI on deputation
will be considered for absorption. The
recommendations in respect of such
Constables only be sent.
(7) While sending the proposals for

Absorption, a citation in support of their
Candidature indicating the detailed
Reasons, rewards/commendations
earned by the individual may also be
enclosed with the Performa for each
candidate separately.
(8) Complete ACR folder pertaining to

the period of work in CBI may be
sent along with recommendations.
The integrity of the individual and a
vigilance certificate may also be
furnished.
(9) Recommendations received with

incomplete information are liable to
be rejected forthwith without any
intimation.
Said requirements were in line with
the Recruitment Rules dated 4.07.2013.
31.10.2016 That respondent no.2 vide letter dated
31.10.2016 brought an amendment in
Circular dated 27.10.2016 to the effect
that all the constables having educational
qualification of 10th pass & above and
who have completed 2 years in CBI as
31.03.2016 may be sent to the Head office for
consideration of their cases forabsorption.
A true copy of the letter dated 31.10.2016
bearing No.DP/Pers.III/ 2016/3433/A
31016 /1/2016 issued by the Respondent
No.2 is annexed herein: and marked as
ANNEXURE P-4 (Pages--)
That pursuant to the notification dated
27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016, the name of
the Petitioners was forwarded by their
respective branch offices with their
Citations and recommendations pursuant
to the said recommendations the name of
the Petitioners were recommended by the
Committee constituted for absorption.
It is further submitted that No objection
Certificate (For brevity ‘NOC’) were also
received by respondent no.2 from various
patent organizations and the absorption
process was almost complete.
That it is further stated that certain
constable (GD)’s who had been ousted
for being considered for absorption in CBI
filed a Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition
(Civil) no.11297 of 2016 titled as Raju
Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India.
challenged the notification dated
27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 respectively.
29.11.2016 That in the Writ Petition (Civil)no.11297
of 2016 the Hon'ble High Court was
pleased to issue notice.
A true copy of the order dated
29.11.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhl In writ
Petition (C) No.11297 of 2016 Is
Annexed herein and marked as
ANNEXURE P-5 (Pages ) 25.05.2017
That it Is pertinent to mention here that
Respondent no.2 vide letter dated
25.05.2017 in relation to absorption of
Constables stated that circulars dated
27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 regarding
the absorption of constables in CBI is
hereby withdrawn with immediate
effect.
It is pertinent to mention here that no

reasons were given by the respondents
for withdrawal of the circulars dated
27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016
respectively, A true copy of letter
dated 25.05.2017 issued by the CBI
(Respondent No.2) is annexed hereto
and marked as ANNEXURE P-6 (Page )
Being aggrieved by letter dated

25.05.2017 the petitioners herein made
various representations and oral
requests for recall.
That in response to the said

representations the Respondents
informed the petitioners that the CBI Is
not proposing to absorb Constables and
thus the circulars dated 27.10.2016 and
31.10.2016 had been withdrawn.
It is further submitted that not only our

representations were rejected but also
the respondents in a clever manner
started issuing relieving orders to the
Petitioners with effect from 01.06.2017.
11.07.2017 .
That the respondents again issued
another circular dated 11.07.2017
whereby fresh applications were called
In for absorptions of Constable (GD’s)
Who had not exceeded 7 years of
Maximum tenure on Deputation with
CBI.
A true copy of the Circular dated

11.07.2017 issued by Central Bureau of
Investigation is annexed herein and
marked as ANNEXURE P-7 (Pages ).
It is submitted that the said circular is
bad in law for the reason that even as per
the recruitment rules there is no bar on
absorbing persons who had completed 7
years in CBI, but contrary to the
Recruitment rules, the respondents have
themselves brought the said requirement
to oust the consideration of the
Petitioners and thereby depriving the
Petitioner's of their legitimate
expectation for even being considered for
absorption.
18.07.2017 Being aggrieved by the Circular

dated 11.07.2017 bearing No.DP /
PERSIII/2017/1756/A-31016/1/2016
Issued by CBI the Petitioners filed writ
Petition bearing No.6138 of 2017 under
Article 226 and 227 of the constitution
of India before the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi.
A true copy of Writ Petition (C) No.6138

of 2017 filed by the Petitioners herein
before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi dated 18.07.2017 is annexed
herein and marked as ANNEXURE P-8
(Pages )
26.07.2017 On 26.07.2017 in Writ Petition
(Civil) no.11297 of 2016 the Hon'ble
High Court. was pleased to state and
clarify that the disposal of the
applications in writ Petition (C)
No.11297 of 2016 would not
affect any right of the petitioner under
earlier circulars dated 27" October, 2016
and 31st October, 2016 as also the
challenge to withdrawal of these
circulars.
A true copy of the order dated
26.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) N0.11297 of 2016 is annexed
herein and marked as ANNEXURE P-9
(Pages )
24.08.2017 On 24.08.2017 in Writ Petition
(Civil) no.11297 of 2016 the Hon'ble High
Court was pleased to pass the orders
reproduced herein below:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners states
that he would like to withdraw the
present writ petition with liberty to
challenge the circular dated 11.07.2017, if
deemed appropriate. The writ petition
along. with the pending application Is
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
as prayed for without commenting
on the merits of the case”
A true copy of the order dated 24.08.2017

passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.11297
of 2016 is annexed herein and marked as
ANNEXURE P-10 (Pages )
01.09.2017 It is submitted that counter affidavit
Is filed on 01.09.2017 by the Respondent
No.2 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6138 of 2017
Before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi.
A true copy of the Counter affidavit dated
01.09.2017 filed by the Respondent No.2
New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.6138 of
2017 is annexed herein and marked as
09.10.2017 That Petitioners herein filed

Rejoinder affidavit dated 09.10.2017 in
Writ Petition (Civil) No.6138 of 2017
Before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi.
A true copy of the Rejoinder affidavit
dated 09.10.2017 filed by the Petitioners
New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.6138 of
2017 is annexed hereto and marked as

003228.11.2018
That vide impugned common order
dated 28.11.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 6138 of 2017 and batch matters the
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss
the Writ Petitions.
17.12.2018 Being aggrieved by the impugned

Common Final Judgment and order dated
28.11.2018 the Petitioners herein
preferred Review Petition No. 464 of
2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6138 of
2017 before the Hon’ble High court of
Delhi at New Delhi.
A true copy of the Review Petition No.464

of 2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6138 of
2017 filed by the Petitioners herein before
the Hon'ble High court of Delhi at New –
Delhi dated 17.12.2018 Is annexed hereto
and marked as ANNEXURE P-13 (Pages
)
21.12.2018 That vide impugned order dated

21.12.2018 the Hon'ble High Court was
pleased to dismiss the review petition
stating that, “There is no ground for
review of judgment dated 28.11.2018
passed by this Court is made out. The
Review Petition is accordingly
dismissed”
15.03.2019 Hence the present Special Leave

Petition.
IMPUGNED ORDER-I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.
Reserved on: 20th November, 2018
Pronounced on: 28th November, 2018
W.P.(C) NO.6138 OF 2017

PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber and

Mr. Bhanu Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS: Respondents

Through: Mr Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr
Varun Pathak, Advocates for R-
1 to 6,
W.P.(C) NO.10739 OF 2017
G. VENKATESAN Petitioner
Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber and Mr

Bhanu Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr Harish Garg and Mr Sarfaraz

Ahmad, Advocates for R-1, 3
and 4.
Mr Narender Mann, SPP for CBI
with Mr Manoj Pant, Advocates
for CBI.
W.P.(C) NO.7702 OF 2017
DEVENDER SINGH AND ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber and

Mr.Bhanu Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents

Through: Mr Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For UOL.
Mr Narender Mann, SPP for CBI

with Mr Manoj Pant, Advocates
for CBI .
W.P.(C) NO.8912 OF 2017
E RAMESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber and Mr

Bhanu Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr Ravi Prakash, CGSC with

Mr.Varun Pathak, Advocates for R-1, 3
and 4.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioners who were on deputation with

Central Bureau of Investigatio (hereinafter
referred to as the CBI) have filed writ
petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the circular
issued by CBI relating to absorption of
Constables working on deputation with CBI.
They also challenge the letter dated 25th
may 2017 whereby the earlier circulars
dated 27th October 2016 and 31 St October
2016 have been withdrawn.
2. In all the petitions, identical reliefs have
been sought and therefore all thepetitions
are being decided by a commonjudgment.
Facts
3. The Petitioners are Constables working
with various Departments of Central
Armed Police Force(hereinafter referred
to as the CAPF). They were sent on
deputation to Respondent No. 2 i.e. CBI
for an initial period of three years. The
Petitioners were granted extension twice
and continued ondeputation till such time
they were repatriated.
4. As per the Recruitment Rules of CBI, the
post of Constable (GD) can be filled up by
two sources i.e. deputation an absorption.
Fifty percent posts of Constables are
required to be filled be way of deputation
and the rest by absorption. The relevant
clause of the Recruitment Rules for the
posts of Constable (GD) , is reproduced
hereunder:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Consta *1794 Genera Pay Not Not Not
ble (2013) l Ban applica applica applica
*Subjec Central d- 1 ble ble ble
(GD)
t to Service Rs
variatio , Group 520
n ‘C’ 0-
depend Non- 202
ant on Gazett 00
worklo ed, plus
Non- grad
ad.
Ministe e
rial pay
of
Rs
200
0
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Not Not Hundred per Deputation/a Not Not
applic applic cen bsorption applic applic
able able deputation/a Deputation: able able
bsorption. (i) Officials
Note: The holding
total number analogous
or strength posts on
of constables regular basis
absorbed in Central or
shall not State Police
exceed Forces; and
(ii)
Fifty percent Possessing the

of the total minimum education
strength of qualification of 12th
Constables. class pass or equivalent
from any recognized
Board or University.
Note 1: For purpose of
appointment on
deputation/absorption
basis, the service
rendered on a regular
basis by an officer prior
to 1st January, 2006 or
the date from
Which the revised

pay structure based
on the Sixth Central
Pay Commission
recommendations
has been extended,
shall be deemed to
be service rendered
in the corresponding
grade pay or pay
scale extended based
on the
recommendations of
the Commission,
except where
There has been

merger of more
than one pre-
revised scale of
pay into one grade
with a common
grade pay or pay
scale, and where
this benefit will
extend only for the
post(s) for which
that grade pay or
pay scale is the
normal
replacement grade
without any
upgradation. Note
2: The period of
deputation
including period of
deputation in
another ex-Cadre
post held
immediately
preceding this
appointment in
same or some
other organization
shall ordinary not
exceed seven years
subject to
screening midway
for assessing
fitness and
suitability for
continuation on
deputation and if
a
person is found
unsuitable for
continuation on
deputation, for
whatsoever
reasons, he shall
be reverted to
parent cadre
immediately
without any
notice. Note 3: The
maximum age limit
for appointment
by deputation shall
not be exceeding
fifty-six years as on
the date of
appointment on
deputation.
5. On 29" July 2015, Director CBI convened a meeting

to deliberate upon the process of absorption. It was
decided to Increase the strength by filling up
vacancies expeditiously, Accordingly, a committee
was constituted to work out the modalities of the
absorption process.
6. On 27th October 2016, CBI Issued a letter whereby
it invited recommendations for the candidates who
could be absorbed in CBI. In order to consider the
candidature of a deputationist Constables, certain
guidelines were laid down. These guidelines/criteria
inter-alia provided minimum education qualification
for induction in CBI. Various branches of CBI were
called upon to send recommendations in accordance
with the following Rules:
“(1) Constables must have a minimum education
qualification of 12th class pass or equivalent.
(2) Constables must be drawing pay in the
pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- with
Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/- and revised pay scale
of Rs. 21700-69100 corresponding to Level -3
of 7th CPC Constables who are from CPOs and
are in receipt of higher pay scale under ACP

scheme are also eligible for absorption.
(3) Constables drawing pay in the pre-revised

Pay scales higher than Rs 5200-20200/- with
Grade pay of Rs. 2000/- and revised pay scale
of Rs. 21700-69100 corresponding to Level-3
to 7th CPC in their parent organizations are not
eligible for absorption and their applications/
recommendations should not be sent.

by Constables in State Police Organisations will not
be counted for grant of financial.upgradation
under ACP scheme on absorption in CBI. The
service after absorption in CBI is to be taken into
account for the purpose of determining the
reckonable service for financial upgradation under
ACP Scheme.
(5) The performance of Constables who will be

considered and absorbed in CBI will be
monitored for a period of 2 years and if their
or de-absorption and repatriation to parent deptt.
(6) Constables who have completed their 4 years of

Deputation in CBI as on 31.03.2016 and are still
serving in CBI on Deputation will be considered
for absorption . the recommendations in respect
of such Constables only be sent
(7) While sending the proposals for absorption
a citation in support of their candidature
indicating the detailed reasons,
rewards/commendations earned by the
individual may also be enclosed with the
proforma for each candidate separately.
(8) Complete ACR folder pertaining to the
period of work in CBI may be sent along with
recommendations. The integrity of the
individual and a vigilance certificate may also
be furnished.
(9) Recommendations received with

incomplete information are liable to be rejected
forthwith without any intimation.”
7. In continuation of the letter dated 27th October

2016 , Respondents issued another letter dated 31
St October 2016 . By this letter ,the minimum
educational qualification criteria was modified to
include candidates who possessed qualification

of 10th pass and above and had completed two
years in CBI, as on 31st March 2016.
8. Respective branches of CBI forwarded the names
of the Petitioners with their citations and
recommendations.
9. Certain Constables, filed writ petition bearing 7
number W.P. (C) No. 11297/2016 titled as Raju
Singh and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. and
challenged the notifications dated 27th October
2016 and 31st October 2016 on the ground that
the eligibility criteria of including candidates
possessing educational qualification of 10th pass
and above , was in violation of the Recruitment
Rules. This Court vide order dated 6th December
2016, issued notice of the Petition to the
Respondents.
10. On 25th May 2017, CBI issued a letter and
Withdrew the earlier circulars dated 27th
October 2016 and 31st October 2016 with
immediate effect.
11. Aggrieved by the withdrawal of circulars,
Petitioners made representations to CBI.
12. It is also to be noted that in the meantime, CBI
issued orders relieving some of the petitioners on
repatriation . such petitioners were directed to report
to duty In their parent department, It appears that

some of the Petitioners sought earned leave and the
same was sanctioned and such Constables were
asked to join the parent department after expiry of
the earned leave.
13. On 11th July 2017, CBI Issued fresh circular for

considering the candidature of deputations
‘Constables for absorption. This circular laid down
‘the following guidelines/criteria:
"(1) Constables must have a minimum
education qualification of 12th class pass or
equivalent.
(2) Constables must be drawing pay in the
pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- with
of 7th CPC Constables who are from CPOs and
scheme are also eligible for absorption.
(3) Constables drawing pay in the pre-revised
pay scales higher than Rs 5200-20200/- with
to 7th CPC in their parent organization are not
eligible for apsorption and their
applications/recommendations should not be
sent.
by Constables in State Police Organisations
will not be counted for grant of financial
upgradation under ACP scheme onabsorption
in CBI. The service after absorption in CBI is to
be taken into account for the purpose of
determining the reckonable service for
financial upgradation under ACP Scheme.
(5) The performance of Constables who will
be considered and absorbed in CBI will be
monitored for a period of 2 years and if their
services are not found satisfactory they may be
considered for de-absorption and repatriation
to parent deptt.
(6) Constables who have completed their 4
years of deputation in CBI as on the date on
the issue of this circular (11.07.2017) and have
not exceeded 07 years of maximum tenure on
deputation will be considered for absorption.
The recommendations in respect of such
Constables only be sent.
(7) While Sending the Proposals for absorption a

Citation In support of their candidature
Indicating the detailed reasons, rewards/
commendations earned by the individual may
also be enclosed with the proforma for each
Candidate Separately.
(8) Complete ACR folder pertaining to the
Period of work in CBI may be sent along with
recommendations (if already sent please
ignore). The integrity of the individual and a
vigilance Certificate may also pe furnished.
(9) Recommendations received with incomplete
information are liable to be rejected
forthwith without any intimation.”
14. The Petitioners have challenged theaforesaid
circular in the present writ petitions. An
application bearing number C.M. No.
25510/2017 was also filed seeking interim
order and stay of the operation of circular
dated 11" July 2017. In the alternative,
permission was sought to participate in the
‘absorption process. On the said application
the following order was passed:
" Issue notice returnable on 1st September,2017
Counter affidavit would be filed within three

weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within three weeks of
service of counter affidavit. The contention of
the petitioners is that there is no valid and
good reason to Impose the condition “not
exceeded seven years Of maximum tenure on
deputation” to be considered. for absorption.
The petitioners further state that in terms of
circulars dated 22nd October, 2016 and 31st
October, 2016 they were considered for
absorption in the Central Bureau of
Investigation and the process was almost
complete. No objection certificates had been
obtained from the parent cadre. However,
subsequently, these circulars were withdrawn
and in these circumstances with effect from
1st June, 2017, repatriation orders have been
issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The recruitment process pursuant to the
notification dated 11" July, 2017 may
continue,but appointments made would be
subject to the outcome of the present writ
petition."
15. Mr. Ankur Chhibber learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioners at the
outset submits that Petitioners have since
been repatriated to their parent department
and they have since joined the same. Mr.
Chibber argues that despite the above
situation, the present petition is still
maintainable, as the Petitioners have been
protected by the interim order reproduced
above. His argument is twofold. Firstly , he
submits that the eligibility criteria specified in
the circular dated 11th July 2017, is contrary
to the Recruitment Rules. His submission is
that the Recruitment Rules nowhere provide
that a deputationist Constable who has been
with the organisation for more than seven
years, would have been ineligible for
absorption. He relied upon the note appearing
in the Recruitment Rules and stated that the
said provison only states that the period of
deputation shall ordinarily not exceed seven
years.
(2) Mr. Chibber argues that, the guidelines in the
impugned circular, are in violation of the
Recruitment Rules as they completely bar a
Constable who has exceeded 7 years on
deputation, from being considered. He
strongly urged that CBI could not take awa the
Petitioners’ right to be considered for
absorption, Mr. Chibber very fairly
stated that Deputationist do not have an
automatic right of absorption but, they surely
have a right of consideration.
16. The second limb of his argument is that the
petitioners had a legitimate expectation for
being considered for absorption in light of the
assurance given to them by the Authorities. He
says the assurance is evident from the fact
that the Director, CBI had directed a note
initiating process of absorption resulting in
issuance of the circulars dated 27th October
2016 and 31st October 2016. Pursuant to the
Above mentioned circulars, the Petitioners
were recommended for absorption. He
submits that vide communication dated 25th
May 2017, the Respondents have withdrawn
the circular,without giving any reasons. He
further submits that the Petitioners during
their deputation with CBI were highly
appreciated by the Department and for this
reason several extension were granted to
them with the assurance that ultimately they
would be absorbed in CBI. According to him ,
this created a right in their favor for being
considered for absorption. He prayed that
directions be given to the Respondents to
consider Petitioners for absorption. In
support of his argument, Mr. Chibber has
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v.
Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman
Nigam Ltd & Ors., reported in. (1999) 8 SCC
381., Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors v. State of
Bihar & Ors , reported in (2006) 8 SCC 381
and Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors v. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors, reported in (2010) 10
SCC 707.
17. Mr. Ravi Prakash learned CGSC appearing on
behalf of the Respondents on the other hand
has urged that the petition has become
infructuous in as much as the petitioners
have been repatriated and they have since
joined their parent department. He submits
that it is evident from the Recruitment Rules
and also the impugned circular that only such
Constables can be considered for absorption
, who are on deputation with CBI. Since the
Petitioners are no longer on the strength of
CBI, they cannot be said to be
“deputationist” and therefore there is no
right in ‘their favour of being considered for
‘absorption. He further submits that CBI has
rightly withdrawn the earlier circulars of 27th
October 2016
and 31st October 2016, since the eligibility
Criteria in these circulars was not in sync with
The Recruitment Rules. He submits that no
fault can be
attributed to CBI, for correcting a wrong. He
relied upon the observations made by this
court viz Clause 6 of the impugned circular,
by referring to the order dated 26th July
2017, passed in C.M. No.26330/2017 wherein
it has been categorically recorded as under:
“Reliance placed by the petitioners on circular
dated 11th July, 2017 is misconceived. Clause
- 6 of the circular will only apply to the
Persons who are still on deputation on the
date when circular dated 11th July, 2017
was issued. This is clear from paragraph 2 of
the Circular dated 11th July, 2017. Learned
counsel for the applicant has drawn our
attention to the earlier circular dated 27th
October 2016 wherein the expression ‘and
are still serving in CBI on deputation” was
used. This too in our opinion would not
make any difference and cannot be a ground
to read clause -6 of the circular dated 11th
July ,2017 differently . The language of
Clause 6 of the circular dated 11.07.2017 is clear and

catagoric. Officers who are not serving in the CBI on
deputation on 11™ July, 2017, are not eligible.In these
circumstances, we do not think the applicant is entitled to
any interim relief in view of circular dated 11th July, 2017.
We dismiss the present application, however, making it
clear that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the said
circular if he is so advised, in
accordance with law. We also clarify that the disposal of
this application would not affect any right of the petitioner
under earlier circulars dated 27 October, 2016 and 31st
October, 2016 as also the challenge to withdrawal of these
circulars.”
18. Mr. Ravi Prakash relied upon Note II of the
Recruitment Rules and urged that it is clearly mentioned
there in that period of deputation with CBI including the
period of deputation in another eggs Cadbury postal order
is not exceed 7 years, subject to screening Midway for
assessing fitness and suitability for continuation on
deputation his submission is that the total deputation
period in a
particular case shall not exceed Seven years and this
includes the period rendered on deputation in other :
organisations, prior to coming on deputation with
CBI. Mr Ravi Prakash therefore urged that the circular
dated 11th July 2017 is in conformity with the relevant
Clause of Recruitment Rules. Finally, Mr. Ravi Prakash
submitted that the names of the Petitioners were never
recommended by the committee constituted for
absorption. No NOC was received from the parent
organisation and therefore the Petitioners cannot say that
they had legitimate expectation for being considered for
absorption.
Findings
19. The question before the Court is rather a simple

one. Do the Petitioners have a right of being’
Recrutment: Rules. A careful reading of Note II of
the Recruitment Rules distinctly indicates that the
candidates who are to be considered for absorption should
be on deputation with CBI on the date of consideration the
concept of mid term review to assess eligibility and
suitability of a candidate for
continuation of deputation prior to appointment on
absorption basis, undeniably means that only such 3
persons would be eligible, who are presently serving
with CBI on deputation. This is also clear from the
language of Clause 6 of the impugned circular. In the
present case as on date , none of the petitioners
“are on deputation. We therefore find no basis for the
Petitioners to seek directions to CBI to consider their
candidature. We note that this Court had passed an
interim order, observing that the recruitment process
pursuant to the notification dated 11th July 2017 may
continue, but such appointments would be subject to
outcome of the petition. However, such an order does not
vest a right in favour of the Petitioners. Even If this Court
were to quash the recruitment process, it would only mean
that the appointments made pursuant to the impugned
notification are invalid Mr. Chibber argues that, the
guidelines in the impugned circular, are in violation of the
Recruitment Rules as they completely bar a Constable who
has exceeded 7 years on deputation, from being
considered. He strongly urged that CBI protection granted
the petitioner would in any manner rendered them eligible
as per the recruitment.
Rules. The petitioners are presently on the strength

of their respective parent departments.20. It is well
settled in law that a person has no vested,right to
continue on deputation or to be absorbed.The law
relating to deputation has been settled in several
judgments. The Supreme Court in ‘Kunal Nanda v. Union
of India & Anr., reported In, (2000) 5 SCC 362, held as
under:
"6. ... It is well settled that unless the claim of the
deputationist for a permanent absorption in the
department where he works on deputation is based upon
any statutory rule, regulation or order having force of law,
a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such
claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying
deputation itself is that the person concerned can always
and at any time be repatriated to
his parent department and there is no vested right in
such a person to continue for long on deputation or get
absorbed in the department to which he had gone on
deputation.”
21. similar review has been expressed by the supreme
court in Union of India v. v Ramakrishnan and ORS
reported in (2005) 8 SCC 394, UNION OF INDIA (UOI)
and Ors. vs. S.A. Khalliq Pasha and Ors. reported in

MANU/SC/1536/2009 and by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Chander Pal Singh v. Union’
of India & Ors., reported in 104 (2003) DLT 8
22.Besides the above mentioned reason, there is
another, as to why the Petitions should fail. TheCircular
impugned in the present petition stipulates that the
constables who have not exceeded 7 years On deputation
will be considered for absorption. This
is in line with Note II of the Recruitment Rules of 2013. The
period of seven years provided In Clause 6 of the impugned
circular deals with the maximum tenure on deputation.
Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
circular that would warrant an intervention by this Court.
We note that the earlier circular of 27 October 2016
modified by letter dated 31st October 2016 that bring in an
element on ofconflict with the recruitment rules CBI has
stated that they saw intervention or dopt for relaxation of
the eligibility criteria but the request was declined and the
CBI had to withdraw the said circular the action of
withdrawal does not appear to be arbitrary the fresh
circular issued after
withdrawal is in conformity with the Recruitment
23.Petitioners plea of legitimate expectation Is also
without merit. Merely because the Petitioners
continued to be on deputation for a period of seven
years or more, it cannot be said that a right has

accrued in their favour. The delay on the part of CBI
to complete this absorption process was also on
account of the earlier circulars being contrary to the
Recruitment Rules. Mr. Chibber relies on the

Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Pravesh Singh & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors, (2006)
8 SCC 381. This judgment is distinguishable from
the facts of the present case. The Appellant therein
were working for the Futwah-Phulwarisharif Gramya
Vidyut Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (for short “the Society”).
| society was brought into existence by the Bihar
government and the Bihar State Electricity Board by issuing
a licence to the society under the State Electricity Act there
after the licence issued to the society was removed and it
was merged with the board on the account of this words
are the applicants claimed right to be observed relying on
the doctrine of legitimate expectations.
24. Further, the judgment of the Supreme Court 2 >
Rameshwar Prasad (supra) is also of no assistance to the
Petitioners. In the said case the Petitioner who was on
deputation claimed that he should be declared to be
deemed to be absorbed on the ground that the parent
department had stopped paying him deputation
allowance.
25. It is worth noting what has been stated in para 15,
relevant portion thereof is reproduced below:»15. In the
present case, considering the facts,it is apparent that
inaction of respondent No. 1of not passing the order either
for repatriationor absorption qua the appellant was
unjustifiedand arbitrary.”(emphasis supplied)
26. The facts of Rameshwar Prasad (supra) therefore
are completely differentiable, in as much as the petitioners
in the said case continued to be with boring department
and there was no order for repatriation in the instant case
as noted above all the petitioners have been repatriated
and they have joined their parents department .
27. similarly the judgement of the supreme court in Girjesh
Shrivastava and ORS V state of Madhya
pradesh & Ors, (2010) 10 SCC 707, is also not

relevant to the facts of the present case. In the
above noted case the Apex Court held that if there
are irregularities in a selection process, then those
irregularities should be weeded out instead of =
striking down the entire selection process.
Whereas, Sh SANJEEV NARULA, JI)
SH.S. MURALIDHAR, JI)
in the present case, the earlier circulars that have
been withdrawn, were contrary to the
Recruitment 5 Rules. This would mean that the
entire process had +to be done afresh.in view of the
aforemention discussion, we find nomerit in the present
petitions and the same are dismissed with no order as to
costs.
NOVEMBER 28,2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New DELHI
W.P. (C) 6138 OF 2017

PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents
Through: Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.

CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
ORDER 21.12.2018
CM. No.54062/2018 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the
application is disposed of. REVIEW PET.
No.464/2018 In W.P. (C) 6138/2017
2. There is no ground for for review of judgment
dated 28th November, 2018 passed By this
court ls made out.The reviews petition is
accordingly dismissed. S.Muralidhar,J
Sanjeev Narula,J
December 21,2018
(SCR, Order XXI Rule 3(1) (a)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2019
{WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
H POSITION OF THE PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF HIGH COURT SUPREME COURT
1. Sasi Kumar Petitioner Petitioner
No No
2.Shamsher singh
3.Sohan Lal
4.Jagbir
5.K Devadoss
6.R A singh
7.Ram Niwas
8.Fateh Singh
9.Ramesh Kumar
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. The Petitioners above named Is filing the present
petition seeking special leave to appeal against the
final Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2018 in Writ
Petition (C) No, 6138 of 2017 and order dated
21.12.2018 In Review Petition No. 464 of 2018 in
Writ Petition (C) No. 6138 of 2017 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi wherein the
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss both the
Petitions filed by the Petitioners herein.,
The Petitioners submit that no Letters Patent Appeal
Is maintainable against the impugned judgments
before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
and the petitioners have exhausted all the alternative
remedy available to them,
QUESTIONS OF LAW:
. Whether the appointing authority can be imposed the
condition of maximum experience whereas recruitment
rules allowed redeputation after seven years ?
B.Whether maximum seven years condition of
deputation can be imposed for absorption ?
C.Whether maximum seven years condition of
deputation is manadatry for deputation whereas
?
D Whether any violation of the principal of parity
whereas many employees absorbed in CBI who are
having more than seven years deputation in CBI ?
E. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in
passing the impugned order without considering
that withdrawal of Circular dated 27.10.2016
(Subsequently modified on 31.10.2016) vide
letter dated 25.05.2017 without giving any
reasons is a non speaking order, arbitrary and
unsustainable in the eye of law?
F. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in

passing the impugned order without
considering that the Petitioners are eligible
for absorption and they have right of being
considered for absorption as per CBI (Group
'B’ and Group 'C’ Executive Posts Recruitment
Rules, 2013?
G. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified
In passing the impugned orders without
Considering that Petitioners have legitimate
expectations for being considered for
absorption in light of the assurance given to
them by the authorities?
DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):

Petitioner Submit that no other petition seeking
has been filed by the Petitioners against and Order dated
28.11.2018 in Writ petition see number 6138 of 2017 and
order dated 21st December 2018 in review petition
number 464 of 2018 in w r i t petition see Number 61 38
of 2017 passed by the honorable High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi
. 4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5 -
The Annmexures P-1 tm P-13 produced ziong with he
Special Leave Petition ars true copies of he
pleading/documents which form part of the records of
the case in the Courts telow.
5. GROUNDS
Leave to appeal is sought for on the following amongst
other grounds:
a) The appointing authority malafiedely kept the
process absorption more than 9 month whereas
after repratraition of all petitioners,further
absorption was completed within one month by
imposing new condition of maximum seven years of
deputation.which was not in the notification of
20.10.2106 whereas all petitioners are fully eligible.
b) The dispute was only for the minimum years of
deputation and qualification of tenth pass which CBI
reuired in the further notification whereas petitions
has no relation with the further notification of dated
31.10.2016.Thus CBI misguide the honorable high
court by saying tha DOPT was not relaxed the
caondition of seven years.There was not any dispute
in realtion of the condition of maximum seven years
of deputation.
c) The condition of maximum seven years deputation in
CBI is not manadatory because the word “ordinarlly”
was used in recruitment rules which shows that
deputation may be than seven years and many
employees were absorbed in CBI who are having
deputation more than seven years.
d) The Deputation rules are different than absorption
because who are on deputation at the time of
absorption,is eligble inspite of the maximum years of
deputation and many such employees absorbed in
CBI.Therefore who are having more than seven years
deputation are more capable and experienced and
deprived them from absorption is injustice.The
condition of maximum years deputation is violation
of natural justice.Whreas recruitment rules also
allowed to redeputation of employee after seven
years also.
e) Because the Hon'ble High Court ought to have
considered that the Respondents themselves had
issued circulars dated 27.10.2016 and31.10.2016 for
filling up the post of Constable (GD)'s in Central
Bureau of investigation by absorptions and at that
Point of of time the petitioners are fully eligible
under posts recruitment rules 2013.
f) Because the honorable High Court erred in not
appreciating that white letter dated 25 may 2017
both the circular dated 27 October 2016 and 31st
October 2016 were withdrawn by respondent
number 2 without setting anyreason which is in gross
violation of the principle of the natural justice
g) because the honorable High Court about to have
considered that the petitioners have leguminous
Expectations for being considered for absorption in light
of the sun is given to them by the authorities which is
evident from the fact that the respondent number 2 on
29th July 2015 had directed for initiating the process of
absorption thereafter circular dated 27 October 2016 and
31st October 2016 were issued.
h) because the honorable High Court erred in not
appreciating that the petitioner has came on deputation
with the respondent number 2 and their work has been
appreciated and saver extensions were also branded with
the Shore insist that they would be ultimately observed in
CBI.
i) because the honorable High Court or to have
considered at circular dated 27 October 2016 and 31st
October 2016 watch challenge on the ground at the
constable who did not process is the value education
qualification as per the recruitment rules 2013 they could
not be considered and there is no need to withdraw
entire process of absorption it is submitted that the
petitioner in have passed class 12th in terms of CBI Group
B and
Group C executive posts recruitment rules 2013 it is
submitted that the respondents violin could have very
well segregated the candidates who are not fulfilling the
education qualification as laid down and could have
completed the absorption process.
j) because the honorable High Court erred in not
appreciating that the petitioners here in a branded the
service sincerely and diligently during their period of
service and there was no reason to discontinue the
period of deputation and after having issued the relieving
orders to call for fresh application for absorption wide
circular dated 11th July 2017 and De bearing the
petitioners here and for fresh consideration.
k) because the honorable High Court ought to have
considered that relying on the assurances of the
respondents the petitioner had forgotten their promotion
in the in the parents cadre with the legitimate
expectation that they would be absorbed.
l) call the honorable High Court erred in not appreciating
that vacancies have been lying vacant for a long period
and decision to fill up the vacancies were taken in 2015
but still same is pending.The
delay In filling up the vacances Is ec
negligence of the respondents and the ne
cannot be put to a disadvantage by the respondents =
for thelr own mistakes.
Because the Hon'ble High court ought to have
considered that the Petitioners had completed 2
years of deputation way back , therefore
there was no reason for the respondents to not
consider the case of the Petitioners for absorption in
CBI even though the recruitment rules as framed by
the respondents clearly provide that the persons
who have completed 2 years of service on
deputation shall be considered for absorption.
Therefore, the Petitioners cannot be penalized for
the lapse on the part of the respondents to consider the
Petitioners for absorption.Cp) Because the Hon'ble High
Court erred in not appreciating the fact that clause 2(6)
of circular
dated 11.07.2017 is bad in law to the extent it
restricts consideration of persons having more than
7 years of deputation period as the same had
occurred due to the administrative lapse of the
respondents
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF
That the Petitioners herein is gravely and seriously
prejudiced by the common final judgment and order
dated 28.11.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6138 of
2017 and order dated 21.12.2018 in Review Petition
(Civil) No, 464 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6138 of
2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi wherein the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to
dismiss both the Petitions filed by the Petitioners
herein.Because there are more than 500 available
vacancies and even if the respondents consider the
petitioners underthe circular, there will be more enough
vacancies for thepetitioners to be considered for
absorption in the CBI and therefore there is no reason
for the Petitioners to not be considered for the
absorption in CBI.Because clause 2(6) of circular dated
11.07.2017 is bad in law to the extent it restricts
consideration of personhaving more than 7 years of
deputation period as thecame had occurred due to the
administrative lapse of the respondents.that it is humbly
submitted that the balance of convenience is in favour of
the petitioner and that no pre judicious whatsoever
would be caused to the respondents in case in term
orders as short for granted.
7, MAIN PRAYER: -
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court

maybe pleased to:
a) grant special leave to appeal against the final
Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2018 in WritPetition
(©) No. 6138 of 2017 and order dated21.12.2018 in
Review Petition No. 464 of 2018 inWrit Petition (C) No.
6138 of 2017 passed by theHon'ble High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi; and
b) pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
maydeem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the present case and in the interest of justice..
8.PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF: -
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
maybe pleased to: -
a) grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the effect and
operation of final Judgment and Order dated28.11.2018
passed by the Hon'ble HighDelhi at New Delhi in
Writ2017; and/or
b) grant ad interim ex Parte stay of the effect and
operation of the final judgement and order dated 21st
December 2018 in review petition civil number 464 o
2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6138 of 2017
passedby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
i;and/or c) grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the effect
and
operation of Circular dated 11.07.2017 bearing
No.DP/PERS 111/2017/1756/A-31016/1/2016 issued
by the Central Bureau of Investigation;
d) grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the effect and
operation of letter dated 25.05.2017 bearing
No.DP/Pers.111/2017/1756/A-31016/1/2016 issued
by the Central Bureau of Investigation;
e)pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Courtmay
deem fit and proper in the facts andcircumstances of
the present case.AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS
YOUR HUMBLE
PETITIONERSAS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVERPRAYDRAWN & FILED BY:-
Advocate for the Petitioner
Place: New Delhi

Drawn on: 15.04.2019
Filed on: 15.04.2019
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sasi Kumar & Ors. Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondents
CERTIFICATECertified that the Special Leave Petition
is confinedonly to the pleadings before the Court
whose order ischallenged and the other documents
relied upon in thoseproceedings. No additional facts,
documents or grounds
have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special
Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of
thedocuments/annexure attached to the Special
LeavePetition are necessary to answer the question
of lawraised in the petition or to make out grounds
urged in theSpecial Leave Petition for consideration
of this Hon'bleCourt. This Certificate is given on the
basis of theinstructions given by the petitioner in the
Special Leave
Petition.
CERTIFIED BY:
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sasi Kumar & Ors. | | petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. | Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Fateh Singh, Son of. , aged … years,
Resident of Village and Post office- , Police Station -,
District - , Haryana - . presently come toNew Delhi, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
1. That I am the Petitioner No. in the above
mentionedmatter and as such well conversant
with the facts andcircumstances of the case and
hence competent and toswear this affidavit on
my behalf and on behalf of theother Petitioners.
2. I say that I have read and understood the
contents ofthe Synopsis & List of Dates at pages B
to S andcontents of Special Leave Petition as
contained in paras1 to 8 at pages 31 to 49 state
that the averments of facts made therein are true
to my knowledge andinformation derived from
the record of the case andthose of submission of
law made in questions of law, agrounds, prayers,
certificate and ; interlocapplications at pages 179
to 185 are true andthe best of my knowledge and
belief.
3. that the annexure P-1 to P- 13 at pages 51 to 178
filed along with the special leave petition are true
copies of their respective Originals That the contents
of the above affidavit are true andcorrect. No part of
it is false and nothing material has been willfully
concealed therefrom
VERIFICATION Verified at New Delhi on this 7" day of
March, 2019 thatbeen willfully concealed there
from.the contents of above affidavit are true and
correct to thebest of my knowledge and belief. No
part of It is false and
nothing material has been concealed there from.
APPENDIX
“The Constitution of India
Article 309 - Recruitment and conditions of service
of persons serving the Union or a State.Subject to the
provisions of this Constitution, Acts ofthe appropriate
Legislature may regulate the recruitment,
and conditions of service of persons appointed, to
publicservices and posts in connection with the
affairs of theUnion or of any State:Provided that it
shall be competent for the Presidentor such person
as he may direct in the case of servicesand posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union, andfor the
Governor of a State or such person as he maydirect in
the case of services and posts in connection with
the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the
recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons
appointed, to such services and posts until provision
inthat behalf is made by or under an Act of the
appropriate Legislature under this article, and any
rules sohave effect subject to the provisions of any
such act.
ANNEXURE P-1
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND
PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 4" July, 2013
G.S.R. 467 (E) - In exercise of the powers conferred
by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution and in
suppression of the Central Bureau of Investigation
Group
‘C’' Executive Posts Recruitment Rules, 1996, except
as
respect things done or omitted to be done before
such
suppression, the President hereby makes the
following
rules regulating the method of recruitment to the
Group
‘B’ and Group Cc’ Executive posts of Inspector of
Police,
Sub-Inspector of Police., Assistant Sub-Inspector of
ANNEXURE P-2
MINUTES OF DCBI'S WEDNESDAY MEETING HELD ON
29.07.2015
1. The meeting was attended by Shri R.K. Dutta,
Special Director, Shri Y.C. Modi, Additional Director,
Shri O.P. Verma, DoP, Shri R.P. Aggarwal, AC, HQ,
Shri A.K. Sharma, JD, BS&F, Shri Prabodh Kumar,
JD(A), Ms. Nina Singh, Hoz/STF, Shri R.S. Bhatti, JD
(Policy), Shri Rajeev Sharma, Hoz/EoZ-I, Shri Anurag
Garg, HoZ, Delhi Zone, Shri Rajeev Singh HoZ(NE).
The following issues were discussed in the meeting:-
2. DCBI shared his views about the inauguration of the
professional Training Course for CBBI Officers at IIM
Bangalore w.e.f. 27.07.2015. He stated that not only
the CBI Officers, he found the management of IIM-
Bangalore also keen to engage with CBI on a long
term basis. DCBI mentioned that he conveyed hi en
views to the Management that the CBI Officer

normally well-versed with Law and Legal Procedure
Therefore, the training course should
forward from here-on. he also mention to them the
difficulties like procedural delays in the process of trial
which they should factor in while designing the
accordingly DCBI also mentioned that with the
mounting of vacancies in various ranks it is becoming
more and more difficult to take up more cases being
assigned to CBI by various authorities he directed that
the proposal for increasing the strength and film up the
vacancies must be taken up expeditiously the existing
proposals be pursued vigorously.[Action: JD(A)]
4. DCBI directed that the writing of PARs for the years
2014 and 2014-15 should be assessed by Admn.
Division. The Officers present were asked to
expeditethe PARs at the earliest. |Action: DA(A), All
other HoZs/)Ds] |
5. DCBI directed that he will start conducting review of
Branches/zones with effect from 10.08.2015. During
this review, important heads including time-barred
cases, achievement of targets of UI, FI and UT cases,
induction of inspectors and inspection of Bran: |
would be taken up. He also dread tha £review will be
conducted onDelhi for which DOP and Hoz Delhi may
movies all h o b and h o z of headquarter branches or
zones
DCBI expressed concern at the safety maintenance
ofCBI HQ building which led to a minor fire incident
recently. He directed that we should learn a
lessonfrom it. He also directed that HoZs concerned
shouldensure that the HoBs of Branches under their
respective control keep proper custody of various
operational rooms on different floors of the
building.HoBs should also be made responsible for
anydiscrepancy in this regard. He directed that the
firstinformant of the fire in the latest incident
should berewarded. JD(A) should complete the
. enquiry and putup a report.
[Action: All HoZs/JDs]
7. The theme of the Annual Conference again came
upfor discussion. While it was felt that the topic of
Prosecution as such may be too wide, something
connected with prosecution may be thought of by
the Committee concerned. It was also discussed
request Special Judges to attend various sessions of
the Conference.
ANNEXURE P-3
No. DP/PERS 111/2016/3390/A-31016/1/2016
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ADMINISTRATION DIVISIONPlot No. 5-B, CBI
Head Quarters,7" floor CGO Complex Lodhi Road,New
delhi-110003Dated: 27.10.2016
Subject: Absorption of Constables in CBI
1. A decision has been taken to consider the
candidature of deputationist Constables for
absorption. In view of this, HoB are requested to
send their recommendations in the prescribed
proforma (enclosed) to CBI HO so as to reach HO
latest by 07.11.2016. The recommendations should
be routed through HoZ. The branch SsP should not
write for NOC from the parent deptt. On the basis
of this circular. A reference for NOC will be made
by CBI HO only when a particular candidate is
approved for absorption by a Screening committee.
2. While recommending the names of the Constablesfor
absorption in CBI, the branch may keep in viewthat such
recommendations are sent only in
of deputationists Constables who possess minimum
education qualification for induction in CBI is
absolutely necessary in the interest of the
Organization in the long run. While considering
absorption, preference will be given to Constables
having trade skills such as driving
/computer/typing/having technical ~~ expertise/
working as security aide. Constables who will be
considered for absorption on the basis of Driving
skills will be taken in MT Cadre only. While applying
for absorption, Constables, will give an undertaking
that they will serve in the segment where they are
selected. If selected, Constables will be absorbed
only after receipt of NOC from parent selected. If .
selected, constables will be absorbed only after
receipt on NOC from parent organization and
subject to vigilance clearance. The
recommendations may not be sent in a routine
manner.. The recommendations of Constables be
sent in the prescribed proforma enclosed asAnnexure
-A subject to the following guidelines: :
(1) constables must have a minimum education
qualification for 12th class pass or equivalent
(2) Constables must be drawing pay in the pre revised
pay scale of rupees 5200 to 20200 with
of 7" CPC Constables who are from CPOs and
scheme are also eligible for absorption.(3) Constables
drawing pay in the pre-revised pay
scales higher than Rs 5200-20200/- with
to 7*" CPC in their parent organizations are not
eligible for absorption and their applications/
recommendations should not be sent.
(4) It is also made clear that service rendered by
Constables in State Police Organisations will |
not be counted for grant of financialupgradation
under ACP scheme on absorption ncbi is to be taken
into account for the purpose of determining the table
service for financial upgradation under ACP scheme.
(5) the performance of constables who will be
considered and observed in CBI will be monitor for a
period of 2 years and if their services are not found
satisfactory they may
be considered for de-absorption andrepatriation to
parent deptt.
(6) constable who have completed their 4 years of
deputation in CBI as on 31st March 2016 and are still
serving in CBI on deputation will be considered for
absorption the recommendation in respect of search
on stables only be sent.
(7) While sending the proposals for absorption a
citation in support of their candidature
rewards/commendations earned by the
proforma for each candidate separately. |
(8) Complete ACR folder pertaining to the period
of work in CBI may be sent alongwith
recommendations. The integrity of the
individual and a vigilance certificate may alsobe
furnished.
(9) recommendations received with incomplete
information are liable to be rejected forth with
without any intimation
The branch recommendations routed through
concerned DISG in the prescribed proforma
alongwithjob specification may reach HO latest by
07.11.2016.Recommendations received after this
date will not be
considered.
Yours faithfully
SD/-
(D P Singh)
Admn Officer (Pers)
CBI, Head Office, New Delhi.
Encl AS above
Copy to:-PS to Director, CBIPS to SDCBI,
PS to all ADCBIs Sr PAs to all Joint Directors CBI
Sr PA to Director of Prosecution
All DIG, CBI
ANNEXURE P-4
No. DP/Pers.111/2016/3433/A-31016/1/2016
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ADMINISTRATION DIVISIOnPlot No. 5-B, CBI
Head Quarters7" floor CGO Complex Lodhi Road,
New delhi-110003 Dated: 31.10.2016
Subject: Absorption of Constables in CBI In
continuation of HO's circularNo.DP/Pers.I11/20
16/3390/A-31016/1/2016 dated27.10.2016 cases of
all the Constables having |educational qualification
of 10" pass & above and who I have completed two
years in CBI as on 31st March 2016 may be sent to
head office in response to circular dated 27 October
2016 for consideration of their cases for absorption
however the final decision about absorption of such
constables will be taken after approval of dopt the
recommendations in the prescribed proforma must
reach head office latest by 7 November 2016
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
ANNEXURE P-5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) NO.11297 OF 2016
RAJU SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr. Ankur Chhibber,
Mr.M.S. Vishnu Shankar &
Ms.Athira G. Nair, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents
‘Through Mr.Ruchir Mishra & Mr.Mukesh
Kumar Triwari, Adv. for R-1, 2 &
4,
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Respondent No.3 (CBI) is not representing inspite of
advance notice.
Issue dasti notice to respondent No.3 (CBI),
returnable on 5" December, 2016. Process fee be
filed by
tOMOrrow.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2016
ANNEXURE P-6
No. DP/Pers.111/2017/1756/A-31016/ 1/2016
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
Plot No. 5-B, CBI Head Quarters,
7% floor CGO Complex Lodhi Road,
New delhi-110003
Dated: 25.05.2017
Subject: Absorption of Constables in CBI
Circular dated 27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 regarding
the
absorption of constables in CBI is hereby withdrawn
with
immediate effect.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(D.P. Singh)
Admn Officer (Pers)
CBI, Head Office, New Delhi
Copy to:-
PS to Director, CBI
PS to SDCBI,
PS to all ADCBIs
Sr PAs to all Joint Direciors CBI
Sr PA to rector of Prosecution
-
No. DP/PERS 111/2017/1756/A-31016/1/2016
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
Plot No. 5-B, CBI Head Quarters,7" floor CGO
Complex Lodhi Road,New delhi-110003
CIRCULAR1. A decision has been taken to consider
the candidature of deputationist Constables for
absorption in view of this HoBs are requested to
send their recommendation in the prescribed
proforma (enclosed) to CBI HO so as to reach HO
latest by 31.07.2017. The recommendation should
be routed through HoZ the branch Ssp should for
NOC will be made by CBI HO only when a particular
candidate is reference for NOC will be made by CBI
only when a particular candidate is approved for
absorption by a Screening Committee.
2. White recommending the names of the Constables
4 absorption in CBI the branch may keep in view that
such recommendations are sent only in respect of
deputation constable who possesses minimum
educational qualification for induction in CBI on
of rupees 21702 69100 corresponding to level 3
of 7" CPC Constables who are from CPOs andare in
receipt of higher pay scale under ACPscheme are
also eligible for absorption.Constables drawing pay
in the pre-revised payscales higher than Rs 5200-
20200/- with Gradepay of Rs. 2000/- and revised
pay scale of Rs.21700-69100 corresponding to
Level-3 to 7%CPC in their parent organizations are
noteligible for absorption and their applications
/recommendations should not be sent.It is also
made clear that service rendered byConstables in
State Police Organisations willnot be counted for
grant of financialupgradation under ACP scheme on
absorptionin CBI. The service after absorption in CBI
is tobe taken into account for the purpose of
determining the reckonable service for financial |
upgradation under ACP Scheme.
5. the performance of constables who will be
considered and will be monitored for a period of 2
years and if their services are not found satisfactory
they may be
considered for de-absorption and repatriation
to parent deptt,
it
(7) While sending the proposals for absorption a
citation in support of their candidature
rewards/commendations earned by = the
proforma for each candidate separately.
(8) Complete ACR folder pertaining to the period
of
work in CBI may be sent alongwith
recommendations (if already sent please
ignore). The integrity of the individual and a
vigilance certificate may also be furnished.
information are liable to be rejected forthwith
without any intimation.
The branch recommendations routed through

concerned HoZ/DisG in the prescribed proforma
alongwith job specification may reach HO latest
by
31.07.2017. Further, branches are requested to
send the
fresh nominations because the earlier received
nomination/recommendation will not be
considered for
absorption Recommendations received after
this date will
not be considered.
SD/-Deputy Director (Pers)
CBI, Head Office, New Delhi.Encl AS aboveCopy
to:-PS to Director, CBI PS to SDCBI,PS to all
ADCBIs Sr PAs to all Joint Directors CBISr PA to
Director of ProsecutionAll DIsG, CBIAll SsP, CBI &
OSD to DCBI
AIG(P)-1, II AD(Co & Interpol) CBI New DelhiAll
Sections / Divisions/ Zones of CBI
Incharge CBI Control Room / MT Cell
. Duty Officer, CBI HO New Delhi.
ANNEXURE -A’
CONSTABLES :
NAME OF THE BRANCH / UNIT
Name and Rank of the Official with Force No
Name of parent deptt.
Date of Birth.
Whether SC/ST
Native Place
Mother Tongue.
Date of enlistment in the parent deptt.
Date of joining in CBI on deputation
I. Initial deputation period
II. Extended deputation period.
(Attach document in support of the same)
Date of completion of 4 years of deputation in
CBI
Date of promotion in parent department

Pay scale in the parent cadre
Post as on Dt. (both revised & pre revised)
Education Qualification
( attach certified copy of proof)
job specific qualifications
a. in case of computer proficiency or trade skills
please attach a certified copy of diploma
certificate
b. in case of drivers
1. Driving licence no.
III. whether he is driving office vehicle motorcycle if
so give vehicle number and date
from which he is driving the same Cveliidle. A
certificate to this effect from the branch SP is
also to be attached positively.
IV. In case of drives, an undertaking to the effect
may be attached that he will be absorbed in
MT Cadre only.
(c) In case of Security Aide:
1 Please attach working experience certificate
for a period of at least two years from the
~ officer positively.
1) Also please attach an undertaking to continue
as Security Aide till promoted.
14. Rewards/Commendation Certificates sanctioned
15. does he fulfill criteria fix for absorption
16. citation a brief citation not exceeding hundred
words maybe attached
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the above information has
been verified with the official records and is correct
to the
best of my knowledge.
Supdt., Of Police CBI
Recommendations of Supdt of Po lice.
Signature
Date
Recommendations of Deputy Inspector General of
Police;-
Signature
Date;
ANNEXURE P-8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP (C) NO.6138 OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS
CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF
THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR ISSUANCE OF
WRIT OF CERTORARI FOR QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
DATED 11.07.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO
THE EXTENT OF CLAUSE 2(6) WHEREBY THE
RESPONDENTS HAVE INCORPORATED THAT NO ONE
WHO HAS EXCEEDED 7 YEARS OF MAXIMUM
TENURE ON
DEPUTATION WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR
ABSORPTION
AND ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR
QUASHING LETTER DATED 25.05.2017 WHEREBY
RESPONDENTS RECALLED THE circular dated 27
October 2016 and 31st October 2016 with which the
respondents had initially invited willingness for
absorption in CBI and for issuance of w r i t of
mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
case of of the petitioners for absorption in Central
Bureau of Investigation.
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HER
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE NAMED
PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
{This is a Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 Of
The Constitution of India praying for issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarifor quashing the Circular dated
11.07.2017 issued by Respondent No.l to the
extent of Clause 2(6) whereby the Respondents
have incorporated that no one who has exceeded 7
years of maximum tenure on Deputation will be
considered for absorption and for issuance of Writ
of Certiorari for quashing letter dated 25.05.2017
whereby the Respondents recalled the circulars |
dated 27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 vide which the
Respondents had initially invited wllingness for
absorption in CBI and for issuance of w r i d of

mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
case of petitioners for adoption in Central Bureau of
Investigation a copy of impugned circular dated 11 07
2017 is annexed as Annexure
P-1 and a copy of the impugned letter dated

25.05.2017 is AnneYed as Annexure P-2.
2. That the Petitioners are Constables from various
Departments of the Central Armed Police Force who
had been sent on Deputation to the RespondentNo.2
on a valid invitation from their respective parent cadre
for an initial period of 3 years.However, over the years
all the Petitioners had been granted extension price on
the deputation due to their excellent service records as
a deputationist in the Respondent No.1.
That the details of the petitioners in the w r i t petition
are enumerated for the kind perusal of this honorable
court;
That on 29.07.2015 a meeting was convened by
Director, © CBI wherein it was deliberated that
absorption in CBI has not taken place for a long time
and therefore various vacancies are lying vacant. It
was therefore suggested that a Committee may be
constituted for filling up the vacant vacancies by
conducting the process of absorption. A true copy of
the meeting dated 29.07.2015 Is annexed as
Annexure P-3. This was also due to the direction
given by the Hon'ble Apex Court which has directed
the CBI to fill up vacancies.
That pursuant to the said directions given by the
Director, CBI a committee was constituted to look
into the absorption and filling up of the vacant
vacancies by conducting absorption.
That as per the Recruitment Rules of the CBI are
concerned, the said post of Constable (GD) shall be
filled up by two sources, i.e. Deputation and
Absorption. 50% is required to be filled by
Deputation and rest 50% are to be filled by
Absorption. A true copy of the Recruitment Rules for
process. Ultimately on 27.10.2016 the Respondents
issued a letter whereby it called for applications of
eligible candidates for being absorbed in CBI as per
the said circular a Constable was required to fulfill
the following conditions:
(1) Constables must have a minimum education
‘qualifications of 12" class pass or equivalent.
(2) Constables must be drawing pay in the pre-
revised pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade
Pay of Rs.2000/- and revised pay scale of
Rs.21700-69100 corresponding to Level 3 of 7%
CPC. Constables who are from CPOs and are in
receipt of higher pay scale under ACP scheme
are also eligible for absorption.
(3) Constables drawing pay in the pre-revised pay
scales higher than Rs.5200-20200 with Grade
pay of Rs.2000/- and revised pay scale of
Rs.21700-69100 corresponding to Level 3 of 7%"
CPC; in: thelr parent organizations are not
eligible for absorption and their
applications/recommendations should not be
sent.
(4) It is also made clear that service rendered by
Constables in State Police Organisations, will
not be counted for grant of financial upgradation
under ACP scheme on absorptionin CBI. The service
after absorption in CBI is tobe taken into account
for the purpose ofdetermining the reckonable
service for financialupgradation under ACP scheme.
(5) The performance of Constables who will be
considered and absorbed in CBI, will bemonitored
for a period of 2 years and if theirservices are not
found satisfactory, they maybe considered for de-
absorption and |repatriation to parent department.
(6) Constables who have completed their 2 years of
deputation in CBI as on 31st March 2016 and Asif
serving in CBI on deputation will be considered for
absorption the recommendation in respect of such
constable only be sent
(7) While sending the proposals for absorption, a
citation in support of their candidature indicating
the detailed reasons rewards or conditions earned
by the individual may also be enclosed with the
proforma for each candidate separately
(8) Complete ACR folder pertaining to the Seri
of work in CBI may be sent along with
recommendations. The integrity of
theindividual and a vigilance certificate may
alsobe furnished.
information are liable to be rejected forthwith
without any intimation.
That in continuation to letter dated 27.10.2016
the
Respondents issued another letter dated
31.10.2016whereby they modified the
Educational Qualification to include 10" pass
also. The said educational qualifications were
contrary to the Recruitment Rules. The said
notification also specified that only ;those
persons who had completed two years
serviceas on 31.03.2016 will only be
considered. A copy ofthe letter dated
31.10.2016 is annexed as AnnexureP-6.That
pursuant to the notification dated
27.10.2016and 31.10.2016 the name of the
Petitioners was
forwarded by their respective branch offices with

their citations and recommendations and
pursuant
to the said recommendations the name of the
Petitioners were recommended by the
Committee constituted for absorption. It is also
pertinent to
13. That since the names of the Petitioners were
recommended by their Offices and cleared by the
Committee the Petitioners were under a belief
that
their absorption orders will be issued shortly.
14. That certain Constable (GD)’s who had been
oustedfor being considered for absorption in CBI
filed aWrit Petition bearing number
W.P.(C)No.11297/2016 titled as Raju Singh & Ors.
V. Union |of India & Ors. challenging the
notification datedcior2016:ana 31:10:2046 on the
round thatthe(CBI was considering even persons
who were 10th passware is the recruitment rules
only prescribed minimum qualifications as 12th
pass this honorable court issued notice in the said
petition wide order dated 6 12 2016
15. That the Respondents without giving any

clarifications or reasons passed an order on
25.05.2017 whereby it ordered that the circulars
dated 27.10.2016 ‘and 31.10.2016 are hereby
withdrawn with immediate effect.
16. That the Petitioners aggrieved by the illegal
action of the Respondents in withdrawing the
circulars dated27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 made
oral requests and various representations for
recall of the order dated25.05.2017.
17. That the Respondents in response to the said
representations informed the Petitioners that the
CBI is not proposing to absorb Constables and
thusthe circulars dated 27.10.2016 and
31.10.2016 had been withdrawn. Not only were
the Representationsof the Petitioners rejected
but the Respondents in a clever and thoughtful
manner started issuingrelieving orders to the
Petitioners with effect from1.06.2017. Some of
the relieving orders areannexed herein as
Annexure P-7.
18. That though the Petitioners have been issued
theirreliving orders but as of today they are still
on thength of the CBI as all of them are on leave
and Parent Cadre.
19, That while the Petitioners were
contemplating to take legal action the
Respondents in a plannedmanner issued circular
dated 11.07.2017 whereby fresh applications
were called in for absorptions of Constable
(GD)’s who had not exceeded 7 years
ofmaximum tenure on Deputation with CBI. The
said circular is bad in law for the reason that
even as per:
20. That the petitioners being aggrieved by the
circulardated 11.07.2017 have no other remedy
except toapproach this Hon'ble Court on the
followingamongst other GROUNDS:
A. because the respondents have failed to
appreciate that the respondents themselves had
issued the circular dated 27 10 2016 and 31st 10
2016 for filling up the post of constable GD in CBI
by absorptions and since the Petitioners were
fulfilling all the criteria the issuance of letter
dated 25.05.2017 withdrawing the circular
dated27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 is without any
basis and reason and thus the same needs to be
set aside on this ground alone.Because the
Respondents have failed to appreciatethat the
Circular dated 11.07.2017 is bad in law to
the extent it excludes the Petitioners for being
considered for absorption under clause 2(6) by
adding that only persons who have less than 7
yearswill be considered. The said criteria is
contrary to their Recruitment Rules which
provides for absorption of Deputationists who
have exceeded 7years and thus the said criteria
needs to be set aside on this ground alone
.Because the Respondents have failed to
appreciate that the Petitioners have a legitimate
expectation for being considered for absorption
in light of the assurance given to them by the
which is evident from the fact that the Director,
CBI as way on 29.07.2015 had directed for
initiating the and ultimately issuance of circular
dated 27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 pursuant to
which the Petitioners were recommended for
absorption, that being the position the
Respondents cannot take away the right of
consideration of the Petitioners for absorption in
CBI. Some of the recommendations are annexed
herein as AnnexureP-8.Because the Respondents
have failed to appreciate that since the day the
Petitioners came On deputation with CBI, their
work has been appreciated and lauded by the
department due to which several extensions
were granted with the assurance that they would
be ultimately absorbed in CBI. The above clearly
shows that a right had been created in favour of
the Petitioners for being considered for the
absorption. That being the position the
Respondents cannot be allowed to deprive the
Petitioners of their right to be |considered for
absorption.Because the Respondents have failed
to appreciatethat even if the circular dated
27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 had been challenged
on the ground that constable who are not
pressing the value education qualifications as per
recruitment rules of 2013 could not be
considered then the
entire process of absorption was not required to
be withdrawn, the Respondents could have
very well segregated the candidates who were
not fulfilling the educational qualifications as
laid down in the Recruitment Rules and could
have completed the absorption process. Having
not done so the orderdated 25.05.2017 is
without any reason or logic andneeds to be set
aside on this ground alone.
Because the Respondents have failed to
appreciate that the Petitioners had rendered
their service sincerely and diligently during their
period of service and there was no reason to
abruptly discontinue their period of deputation
and after having issued the relieving order to
call for fresh applications for absorption vide
circular dated 11.07.2017 and debar the
petitioners for fresh consideration.
Because the Respondents have failed to
appreciate that the vacancies in CBI for
absorption have been lying vacant for a long
period and even after a decision having being
taken as way back as in 2015 there was no
reason for delay in completing the said process.
The delay is attributable to the ndents. That
being the position the Petitioners.
cannot be put to a disadvantage by the
Respondentsfor their own mistakes.
H. Because the Respondents have failed to
appreciate that because of the assurance given
by the Respondents the Petitioners had
forgone their promotions in their parents
cadre with the hope that they would be
ultimately absorbed in CBI. Having
been given such hope and depriving the
Petitioners of their promotions in their parents
cadre theRespondents cannot be allowed to
deprive the Petitioners of their right to be
considered forabsorption.
9 Because the Respondents have failed to
appreciate that it being a model employer
cannot be allowed to take advantage of their
own faults and deprive the Petitioners. If there
was any lacunae in the circular dated
27.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 then the
Respondent ought to have given a fresh
consideration to the Petitioners and not to
have deprived them of the consideration
totally. the Respondents have failed to
appreciate that it has been held by the Apex
Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar K. Parmar
v. S I.G of Police and ors (2002) 9SCC 485:
“While, therefore, we are unable to issue any
mandamus to the State Government requiring
them to permanently absorb these Petitioners
in the Bureau, we would observe that the State
Government may consider the case of these
Petitioners for absorption on transfer in
accordance with the Rules, if they are found
otherwise suitable. In that case the
administration would be better served 0n
account of experience the Petitioners have
already got in the Bureau by serving for eight
years.” The said judgment is squarely
applicable in the factsand circumstances of the
present case as the Petitioners have served for
a period of more than 7years and the
experience gained by them cannot be
lost sight of.Because the Respondents have
failed to appreciate that clause 2(6) of circular
dated 11.07.2017 is bad in law to the extent it
restricts consideration of persons having more
than 7 years of deputation period as the same
had occurred due to the administrative lapse
of the Respondents.Respondents having
committed the said lapse case of the
Petitioners for absorption in CBI eventhough
the Recruitment Rules as framed by the
Respondents clearly provide that the persons
who have completed 2 years of service on
deputation shall be considered for absorption.
Therefore, the Petitioners cannot be penalized
for the lapse on thepart of the Respondents to
consider the Petitioners for absorption.
Because there are more than 500 available
vacancies and even if the Respondents
consider the petitioners under the circular of
11.07.2017, there will still be more than
enough vacancies for the Petitioners to be
considered for absorption in the CBI and
therefore, there is no reason for the
Petitioners to not be considered for the
absorption in CBI
21. That the Petitioners have not filed any
other similarPetition in this Hon'ble Court or
in any other Court.
22. That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to
entertainthis Petition as the Respondents are
based in Delhiand the impugned order has
been passed in Delhi.
PRAYER:
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(A) Issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the
Circular dated 11.07.2017 issued by
Respondent No.1 to the extent of Clause 2(6)
whereby the Respondents have incorporated
that no one who has exceeded 7 years of
maximum tenure on Deputation will be
Snaidered for Absorption;
(B) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing letter
dated 25.05.2017 whereby the Respondents
recalled the circulars dated 27.30.2016 and
31.10.2016 vide which the Respondents had
initially invited willingness for absorption in
CBI;
(C) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondents he case of the Petitioners for
absorption of Investigation;
(D) Pass any other appropriate order /
direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit
and proper.
PETITIONERS THROUGH -
(ANKUR CHHIBBER)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
CHHIBBER & ASSOCIATES
B-5/95, SAFDARIJUNG ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI-110029
MOBILE 9810082847
NEW DELHI
DATED: 18.07.2017
Thanks a lot.
Thanks for the mail.
Thank you for your mail.
.

In The Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2019. in The Matter Of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2019. in The Matter Of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of _____ days in

3. He petition is barred by time and there isdelay of _____days in

Section Article 309

Central Rule: ( Title) NA

State Act: ( title) NA

2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant; NO.1 ; SASI KUMAR & ORS.

(b) Similar pending matter : NO SIMILIARMATTER IS PENDING

7. Criminal matters : NA.

(d) Sentence Awarded : NA

(e) Period of sentence under : NA

(a) Date of section 4 notification : NA

Senior citizen -65 years SC/ST WOMAN/CHILD

DISABLED LEGAL AID CASE IN CUSTODY

11. Vehicle number ( in case of motor accident) : NA

That over 500 vacancies of Constable (GD)'s in

That in terms of CBI (Group 'B' and Group C

That Respondent No.2 without giving any

That respondents herein vide circular dated

It is respectfully submitted that letter date 25.05.2017

The Petitioners above named is filing the present

C.Whether maximum seven years condition of

F. Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in

Hence this Special Leave Petition.

The Petitioners in the present special

It is pertinent to note that over 500

The Petitioners herein

A true copy of the relevant extract of the

29.07.2015 That as this Hon'ble Court directed

That it is respectfully submitted that due to the

absorbed in CBI. A true copy of notification

(1) Constables must have a minimum education

(2) Constables must be drawing pay in the pre-

3) Constables drawing pay in the pre-revised

(4) It is also made clear that service rendered

(5) The performance of Constables who will

(6) Constables who have completed their 2

(7) While sending the proposals for

(8) Complete ACR folder pertaining to

(9) Recommendations received with

It is pertinent to mention here that no

Being aggrieved by letter dated

That in response to the said

It is further submitted that not only our

A true copy of the Circular dated

18.07.2017 Being aggrieved by the Circular

A true copy of Writ Petition (C) No.6138

A true copy of the order dated 24.08.2017

09.10.2017 That Petitioners herein filed

before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at

New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.6138 of

2017 is annexed hereto and marked as

ANNEXURE P-12 (Pages )

17.12.2018 Being aggrieved by the impugned

A true copy of the Review Petition No.464

21.12.2018 That vide impugned order dated

15.03.2019 Hence the present Special Leave

W.P.(C) NO.6138 OF 2017

Through: Mr Ankur Chhibber and

UNION OF INDIA & ORS: Respondents