Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010018892015 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4681/2015 MOSTAK AHMED FORCE NO. 005131032 106 BN. RAF CRPF R/O VILL and P.O. KHANDAKARPARA P.S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOMES AFFAIRS, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-11. 2:THE I.G.P. CRPF NES SHILLONG POLO GROUND SHILLONG- 793001. 3:THE DIGP JAMMU SECTOR CRPF BANTALAB J and K PIN - 781123. 4:THE DIGP CRPF GC GUWAHATI 9TH MILE AMERIGOG Page No.# 2/8 GUWAHATI-23. 5:THE COMMANDANT 2ND BATTALION CRPF SUKMA CHHTTISGARH JHARKHAND. 6:THE D.C. TEZPAL SINGH CHOWHAN IRLA NO. 4378 2ND BN. CRPF 9TH MILE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI-23. 7:R.K. SHARMA C.O. IRLA NO. 2806 2ND BN. CRPF 9TH MILE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI-23 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S A AHMED, MR.D SAIKIA,MR.P P BARUAH,MS.S CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.R1-5, C.G.C.,MR. D C BORAH(R-1 to 7) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 12.08.2025 Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.M. Hassan, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. D.C. Bora, learned CGC for the respondents no. 1 – 7. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is serving as a Sub-Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), bearing Force No. Page No.# 3/8 005131032. At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner was posted at Gouripur in the Dhubri district of Assam. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 12.10.2010, bearing No. J.II-1/2006-10-(RTI)-Legal-JMU, whereby certain allegations leveled against the petitioner by the Former Commandant of the 2nd Battalion, CRPF and the same were subsequently enquired into at the directorate level and the petitioner was issued ‘warning’ letter by the Director General, CRPF on 01.10.2010. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said communication and has further prayed for a direction to the respondent CRPF authorities to take appropriate action and pass necessary orders against the former Commanding Officer, Shri R.K. Sarma, and Deputy Commandant, Shri Tezpal Singh Chowhan, who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 6 and 7, respectively, in the present writ petition. Additionally, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that due to the issuance of the warning letter and his categorization under medical category SHAPE-III, he was overlooked for promotion, while his juniors were promoted to higher ranks. According to the petitioner, he ought to have been promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant by now. However, due to the high-handed actions of the respondent authorities, he continues to serve as an Inspector in the CRPF. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his categorization under medical category SHAPE-III was orchestrated at the behest of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who allegedly misused their official positions and deliberately downgraded the petitioner’s medical classification. As a consequence, the petitioner was overlooked for promotion to the next higher rank. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Page No.# 4/8 petitioner had lodged several complaints before the concerned authorities, including the Director General, CRPF, against respondent Nos. 6 and 7. However, his representations were not redressed, no inquiry was initiated, and no action was taken against the said respondents. Additionally, the petitioner’s request for consideration of his promotion to the higher rank was not acted upon. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition. Notice in the present matter was issued as far back as on 14.09.2015. 6. The respondents are represented by the learned Central Government Counsel (CGC), as well as by the private respondents, i.e., respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The respondents have filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition, contesting the claims and allegations made by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court. In their affidavits, the respondents have denied all allegations and contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had ignored the directions issued by the then Deputy Commandant during his posting in the Second Battalion, CRPF. As a consequence, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of Severe Censure by the Commandant, Second Battalion, in the Orderly Room on 16.01.2008, in accordance with Rule 11(3) of the CRPF Rules, 1955. It is further submitted that the petitioner was found to be disobedient in the discharge of his duties and, as per medical reports, was diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder. Under such circumstances, the petitioner was categorized under SHAPE-III and, therefore, fell short of the eligibility requirements for consideration for promotion to the next higher post. 8. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. Page No.# 5/8 9. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is with respect to the impugned communication dated 12.10.2010, whereby a warning letter was issued to him. The petitioner seeks interference with this communication. Although the respondents have filed their affidavits-in- opposition, they have neither enclosed nor referred to any proceedings or materials forming the basis for issuance of the said warning letter. The warning letter, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-F, appears to have been obtained by the petitioner through an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner contends that the said warning letter was never officially served upon him by the authorities, and a copy was furnished to him only in response to his RTI application. 10. The affidavits filed by the respondents also fail to disclose any material to suggest that the petitioner’s case for promotion was duly considered along with other similarly situated candidates, and that he was found unsuitable for promotion on merit. It is also not disputed by the respondents that in terms of seniority, the petitioner was otherwise eligible to be included in the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher post. Insofar as the categorization of the petitioner under medical category SHAPE-III is concerned, the pleadings on record do not reveal any medical report or opinion of a medical professional or board that may have examined the petitioner and placed him in the said category. The CRPF Act, 1949 and the Rules framed there under particularly the CRPF Rules, 1955 prescribe detailed procedures and criteria for promotion to higher ranks within the force. Rule 55 clearly stipulates that all promotions shall be based on merit, and where merit is found to be equal, seniority shall be the determining factor. For promotion, a member of the Force must be qualified and recommended by the Commandant, Assistant Page No.# 6/8 Commandant, or the Company Commander, as the case may be. 11. There is also a provision under the Rules for the promotion of unqualified personnel, such as a Head Constable to the rank of Sub-Inspector or a Sub-Inspector to the rank of Inspector. Such promotions, however, require the prior approval of the Deputy Inspector General or the Inspector General, respectively. These promotions are subject to a ceiling of 10% of the sanctioned strength for such cases. 12. The pleadings available before the Court, including the affidavits filed by the respondent authorities, do not disclose the procedure adopted for considering the petitioner’s case for promotion. There is no material on record to indicate whether the petitioner’s case was actually considered, nor is there any reference to the process undertaken for evaluating the claims of the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates. Furthermore, there is no record of any findings or conclusions of the Selection Committee, if any, stating that the petitioner was found unfit for promotion. During the course of the hearing, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) submitted that the petitioner is still in service and has been assigned duties that do not require him to handle arms and ammunition, in view of his mental condition as reflected in the medical records. 13. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties, the pleadings available on record, the procedure prescribed under the CRPF Act, 1949, read with the CRPF Rules, 1955 and also taking note that the present writ petition has been pending adjudication since 2015, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice will be meet if the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Page No.# 7/8 (i) The respondent authorities are directed to re-examine the claims of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the CRPF Act and Rules, particularly the provisions relating to promotion under the CRPF Rules, 1955. If the petitioner is found to fall within the zone of consideration on the basis of his seniority, a duly constituted Review Selection Committee shall consider his case for promotion to the next higher post and thereafter pass a reasoned order thereon within a stipulated timeframe. (ii) If it is the considered view of the higher authorities in the CRPF, namely the Commandant or the Inspector General of CRPF, that the mental health condition of the petitioner renders him unsuitable to be entrusted with greater responsibilities by way of promotion, such conclusion can only be reached upon a proper medical evaluation conducted by a Review Medical Board to be constituted by the Inspector General of CRPF. The Review Medical Board shall thoroughly examine the petitioner and subsequently categorize him in the appropriate medical category. (iii) If it is found, as contended by the respondents, that the petitioner is suffering from a mental health issues, this fact shall not be taken as a ground either to discharge him from service or to deny him his lawful rights of being considered for promotion to suitable posts that may be available. 14. The law laid down by the Apex Court rendered in Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal vs. Union of India reported in 2021 SCC online SC 1293 in respect of persons suffering from mental health issues which are accepted as disabilities under the RTPwD Act, 2016 must be strictly followed and the petitioner shall be accommodated by the employer, commensurate with his qualification, eligibility and seniority to such higher post as may be available. Page No.# 8/8 15. The directions contained herein shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Any proceedings to which the petitioner may be subjected, including those before the Review Medical Board, and the conclusions thereof, shall be communicated to the writ petitioner forthwith. 16. Writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant