C.W.P. No.12099 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12099 of 2007 Date of Decision: 15.12.2009 Sukhjinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India through its Secretary and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ranjana Shahi, C.G.S.C. for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing of the proceeding issued on a representation by the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant. The rejection was on the basis that on the date he was considered for empanelment and promotion to the next higher post by DPC on 26.05.2005, he was found ineligible due to non-completion of two years duty battalion tenure, which was mandatory for promotion as per the relevant rules of Border Security Force (General Duty Officers) Recruitment Rules 2001. The impugned order states as a matter of fact that the petitioner was lacking 7 months 15 days in duty C.W.P. No.12099 of 2007 -2- battalion as on 01.01.2005, which was the crucial cut off period determined by the DPC 2005-06. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when he was posted as an Inspector (Vigilance), a signal No.R-3246 dated 19.11.2003 had been issued showing the name of 23 Inspectors, who were in the promotion zone and who had not completed two years mandatory tenure in service company of the duty battalion. The name of the petitioner had been included in the said list, upon which the petitioner took the interview of his Superior Officer namely the Deputy Inspector General, who assured early duty battalion posting to the petitioner but in spite of the same, he was not posted to the duty battalion for nearly 9 months. The lack of experience by 7 months 15 days was on account of late posting, although he had been fully qualified otherwise. The further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that under the Border Security Force (General Duty Officers) Recruitment Rules 2001, Rule 13 provided for the power to the Central Government to relax the provisions with respect to any class or category of persons, if it so deemed necessary or expedient so to do. The impugned order came to be passed, according to him, without really considering the circumstance when the petitioner had otherwise all the requisite qualifications and the number of years of duty battalion tenure could not be completed by circumstance beyond his C.W.P. No.12099 of 2007 -3- control by his late posting. He would also contend that in a similar situation of persons, who had been denied the promotions for lack of the duty battalion tenure, writ petitions had been filed before the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.21990 of 2005 and a batch of cases, where a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court gave a direction, while considering Rule 13 of Rules, 2001 that the authorities would consider the plea for relaxation, keeping in view the sudden increase in the cadre strength, spread through each category of posts and also to have regard to the fact that in 2003-04, such relaxation had been given. The Division Bench had noted that promotions and postings being the prerogative of the employer, the petitioners will have only a right of consideration of relaxation keeping in view that there was no fault of the petitioners for not having completed the duty battalion tenure and only because they had not been deputed to the duty battalion, they had not completed two years. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that pursuant to the directions given by the Delhi High Court, the matter is still under consideration by the respondents. There cannot be any variance in treatment in persons similarly placed and if the petitioners, who had filed their cases before the Delhi High Court have obtained a direction for consideration of their respective cases for relaxation, the petitioner here shall have a similar relief on grounds of parity in treatment. The plea for relaxation will be considered by the C.W.P. No.12099 of 2007 -4- respondents within the parameters of what are necessary and exigent and such a decision will be taken as expeditiously as possible. It is an admitted case that the petitioner has obtained promotion subsequently but the plea is more to secure monetary benefits and for the purpose of seniority of what he would be entitled to, if the promotion were to be reckoned as having been granted at a time when relaxation to him was refused. 3. The writ petition is, therefore, ordered directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to the promotion for higher post by relaxation as provided under Rule 13 of the Border Security Force (General Duty Officers) Recruitment Rules of 2001. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 15, 2009 Pankaj*