The Delhi High Court has rejected the plea of 93 CRPF personnel seeking direction to the Force to deploy them in the upcoming United Nations (UN) Mission, noting it is not for the Court to interfere in such administrative tasks as empanelment for UN Missions.
A Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal further said the CRPF personnel, merely by being empanelled, did not acquire any right to be posted at UN Mission, whensoever and wheresoever”.
The High Court said if the 93 CRPF personnel still meet the requirements set out in the new notices for empanellment, they can to compete with the fresh applicants and if selected, would again be empanelled.
The direction came on a petition filed by the personnel challenging the decision of the CRPF inviting fresh applications for deployment in the upcoming UN Mission in July, 2021.
The 93 personnel contended that pursuant to similar notices issued by the CRPF in 2016, they had applied and participated in the selection process comprising of written examination, physical standards, physical efficiency and medical tests and were selected.
In June, 2017, they cleared the Pre-Deployment Training and from time to time, till the year 2019, they were subjected to further training for deployment in the UN Mission. However, they were not deployed at any of the UN Missions.
They contended that owing to their being empanelled for deployment in UN Mission, they have also lost out on postings which would have earned them special allowances. They also contended that they are still within the prescribed age limits and none of them have become overage for deployment.
While declining their plea, the court, however, noted there was “some merit” in the argument that the petitioners, owing to be so empanelled, had missed out on other opportunities.
“All we can say is, that the respondents CRPF may consider the said aspect, either while selecting the personnel pursuant to the notices dated June 11, 2021 and June 16, 2021 or if indeed find the petitioners to have lost out, consider how the petitioners can be compensated therefore,” the High Court said.
