WP(C) 4620/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The order dated 10.10.2008 issued by the Commandant, 2nd APTF Battalion, Lumding , Assam is under challenge in these proceedings. By the said order, the petition ers have been reverted to the post of Constable by withdrawing the promotion gra nted on 18.7.2007 and direction has been issued to recover the special pay drawn by them while they were posted as Lance Naik (Paid) in pursuant to the promotio n order. 2. As common arguments have been advanced by Mr. P K Roy Choudhury and Mr. B C Choudhury, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the stand of t he State is reflected through a common affidavit filed in W P (C) No.4747/08, th is order will dispose of all the four (4) cases. 3. The petitioners were initially joined in the Assam Home Guard Battalion and thereafter they were absorbed in the year 1999 as constables in the Assam Po lice Organisation. They were sent for the Jr. N. C. O.’s training and it is on r ecord that each of the petitioners had successfully completed the said training. 4. By the order dated 18.7.2007, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Lance Naik (Paid) against existing vacancies and special pay was permitted to be drawn by them in the higher rank. 5. After it was discovered that the petitioners were given promotion out of turn and their seniority in the rank of Constable is to be counted only with ef fect from their respective date of absorption in the year 1999, the impugned ord er has been issued on 10.10.2008 reverting them back to the substantive post of constable and ordering for recovery of rank special pay drawn by the promotees. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Addl. Director General of Police ( TAP), Assam it is averred that the petitioners were erroneously deputed to under go the Jr. N. C. O.’s training along with group of 125 constables who were induc ted into the Organisation on 17.9.1988 (a decade earlier to the petitioners) and since promotions were not due to the petitioners, the decision has been reverse d and the petitioners have been re-posted in the substantive rank of constable. 7. It is however conceded in the counter affidavit that the petitioners wil l get their promotion in due time along with other constables appointed during 1 999 and at that time, there will be no need for them to undergo the Jr. N. C. O. ’s cadre course for promotion to the rank of Lance Naik (Paid). 8. It is submitted by Mr. P K Roy Choudhury and Mr. B C Choudhury, learned counsels that the petitioners had no role in getting the out of turn promotion a nd if any erroneous decision was taken, it is the Authorities who are entirely t o be blamed for putting the petitioners in difficulty. It is further submitted t hat the petitioners have rendered service in the rank of Lance Naik (Paid) and b y relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Babulal Jain vs. State of M. P. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 180 and Paras Nath Sing vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 SCC 314, the counsels contend that even in case of reversal of promo tion, recovery of the excess payment cannot be ordered from the petitioners. 9. The petitioners having been inducted in 1999 were undeservedly sent for training along with those constables who were absorbed in the year 1988, 10 year s ahead of the petitioners. But before the error could be discovered and acted u pon, on the strength of the training undergone by the petitioners, they were giv en promotion to the post of Lance Naik (Paid). However immediately after it was learnt that the petitioners’ turn for promotion was not yet due, the impugned re version has been ordered on 10.10.2008. 10. Having considered the reason attributed for the impugned decision, I am of the opinion that the petitioners cannot have any legal right to claim that th e Authorities were incapacitated to rectify an error by ordering recall of the e rroneous promotion. Accordingly the prayer made for continuing the petitioners i n the higher cadre of Lance Naik (Paid) is not found acceptable. 11. But considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Babul al Jain (Supra) and Paras Nath Sing (Supra) and considering the fact that the pe titioners had discharged responsibility in the higher posts and had no role in i nfluencing the promotion decision, I find enough force in the submission made by the petitioners that the recovery of the alleged excess payment could not have been ordered against the petitioners. 12. Accordingly partial interference with the impugned order is made by rest raining the respondents from recovering the special pay drawn by the petitioners . However no fault is found with the order of reversal of the petitioners to the substantive cadre of constable. It is ordered accordingly. 13. The cases are disposed of with the above declaration without any order o n cost.