WP(C) 6292/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :- In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships ma y be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue a Rule calli ng upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issue directing the respondent authorities to allot the newly san ctioned additional 3 (three) posts of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in Sashastr a Seema Bal (SSB) to the Combatised cadre on the basis of the present strength o f the Group ’A’ Officers in SSB and further to revise the allotment of the posts of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) between the Combatised (feeder post Commandan t) and the Non-Combatised (feeder post Area Organiser) as per the present sancti oned strength of the Group’A’ Officers in the SSB, and on cause(s) being shown, if any, and on perusal of the records and on hearing the parties, may be pleased to pass such further or other order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and prope r in the facts and circumstances of the case. -AND- Pending disposal of this petition, it is prayed that, Your Lodships may be pleas ed to pass an ad-interim order directing the respondents not to promote any offi cer to the newly sanctioned 3 (three) additional posts of Deputy Inspector Gener al (DIG) of the SSB without considering the grievances of the petitioners and / or be pleased to pass such other or further order / orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case . 2. The 6(six) petitioners working in the cadre of Commandant in SSB, are ag grieved by the action on the part of the respondents in ear-marking two posts fo r Non-combatised personnel and only one post for the Combatised personnel. Be it stated here that the petitioners working in the cadre of Commandant belong to C ombatised Division. It is the stand of the petitioners that having regard to the ratio of 60 : 40 laid down in the Recruitment Rules, out of 4 (four) additional posts of which one is meant for the deputationist, there should be two posts re served for the Combatised Division. 3. I have heard Mr. R.K. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Barua, learned CGSC representing the respondents. In the counter affid avit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioners had earli er moved this court by filling WP(C) 3804/2010 and the Division Bench of this C ourt by order dated 19.7.2010, while dismissing the writ petition, held that as to how many posts should be kept available for promotion of Combatised or Non-Co mbatised personnel, is not a matter for judicial review, in the sense that it is only for the authority to decide whom to promote to the post of DIG and how man y. 4. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant w rit petition is entirely on a different footing, inasmuch as, in the earlier wri t petition, the challenge made was to the provisions of the rules/policy of the Govt. but in the instant writ petition, there is no such challenge and that the challenge is to the procedure adopted by the respondents in ear-marking the 3(th ree) additional sanctioned posts. I am afraid, such a stand on the part of the p etitioners is not at all tenable. In the instant writ petition, there is not eve n any whisper about the earlier writ petition and the order passed therein. The aforesaid order of the Division Bench has been brought on record by the responde nts in their affidavit-in-opposition. For a ready reference, the relevant observ ation made in the said order dated 19.7.2010 is quoted below :- In our opinion, how many posts should be kept available for promotion of combat ised or non-combatised personnel is not a matter for judicial review in the sens e that it is entirely for the respondents to decide whom to promote to the post of DIG and how many. As regards the qualify of promotees, there is proper Depart mental Promotion Committee consisting of senior government officers and there is a requirement that an eligible candidate must have undergone a pre-promotional course and should have the appropriate medical fitness, otherwise he cannot be p romoted. We have no doubt that the Departmental Promotion Committee will take no te of these factors while selecting the best for promotions . 5. It was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to make a mention of the earlier writ petition as the issue involved in both the writ petitions, more or less, is one and the same. The Division Bench having already made the aforesaid observations dealing with the core issue, the instant writ petition is not at a ll maintainable. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. Interim order passed on 29.11.2010 stands vacated.