1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3273/2007 U.S.Rathore v. Union of India & Ors. Date of Order :: 18 th November, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. J.K.Mishra, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Godara, for the respondents. .... The petitioner was enrolled as Constable with Border Security Force on 26.5.1966 and in the year 1968, 1969, 1971, 1981 promotions were accorded to him as Lance Naik, Naik, Head Constable and Sub Inspector respectively. A promotion to the post of Inspector was accorded to him in the year 1989 and to the post of Assistant Commandant in the year 1998. A promotion was also given to him as Deputy Commandant on 28.6.2005. On achieving the age of superannuation the petitioner stood retired from service on 30.6.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents allowed him senior time scale from 6.11.2003 though he was entitled for the same w.e.f. 6.11.2002. The petitioner before approaching this Court submitted a representation to the respondents ventilating his grievance but the same stood rejected by the Commandant (Personnel) under a communication 2 dated 16.8.2005. A second representation also came to be rejected on 30.12.2005, hence this petition for writ is preferred with contention that the respondents erroneously deferred the grant of senior time scale for a period of one year though the same is given to his juniors against the vacancies of the year 2002 itself. In reply to the writ petition the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was eligible for senior time scale on 6.11.2002, however, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 1.3.2004 declared him unfit for grant of senior time scale as his last annual confidential remark that is for the year 2001-2002 was of average category. This Court by order dated 26.5.2008 directed the respondents to keep available the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee that met on 1.3.2004. The minutes aforesaid were shown to the Court on 14.7.2008 and after perusing those a further direction was given to the respondents to keep available the provisions prescribing to determine Bench Mark and also for adopting the selection method to access suitability of the Assistant Commandants for grant of senior time scale. Today the provisions aforesaid are also made available by the respondents. The guidelines for promotion of officers in Para Military Forces which are applicable in present controversy provides 3 that the Departmental Promotion Committee should consider CRs for equal number of years in respect of all officers considered for promotion. Where such a requirement does not exist, ordinarily CRs for five preceding years including up-to-date CR should be considered. In the present case in view of the guidelines for promotion of officers in Para Military Forces dated 25.11.1988 the Departmental Promotion Committee was required to examine CRs for five preceding years, however, in case of the petitioner the CRs of only four years were taken into consideration. If the respondents would have considered CRs of last five years then he would certainly have atleast four good ACRs and as such he would have not been treated unfit for grant of senior time scale. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was having remark “very good” for the year 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and “good” for the part of 2002. He was having “average” remarks for the year 2001-2002 only. For the year 2002-2003 also the petitioner was having remarks of “very good”. In view of the remarks referred above relating to the petitioner's ACRs, there was no reason available for the respondents for not treating the petitioner a person having “good” remarks in total. The respondents as a matter of fact only because of last remarks i.e. for the year 2001-2002 considered entire case of the 4 petitioner in the category of “average”. The same is not at all permissible as the petitioner out of five years service received atleast three remarks in the category of “very good” and one in the category of “good”. For the reasons mentioned above the decision of the respondents to treat the petitioner unfit for grant of senior time scale w.e.f. 6.11.2002 is certainly bad. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The decision of the respondents to treat the petitioner unfit for grant of senior time scale w.e.f. 6.11.2002 is declared illegal. The petitioner is declared entitled for getting senior time scale w.e.f. 6.11.2002. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to allow senior time scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 6.11.2002 instead of 6.11.2003 with all consequential benefits. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.