Back
High Court Of Delhi
L.S.BISHT - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 3904 of 1996
Decided On : 05/18/1998
BORDER SECURITY FORCE - PROMOTION - AD HOC APPOINTMENT - REGULARIZATION - LEGALITY - BSF (SENIORITY, PROMOTION AND SUPERANNUATION OF OFFICERS) RULES, 1978 - RULE 9 - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: 1. The promotion of respondents 4 to 6 as Additional Deputy Inspectors General (ADIGs) in the Border Security Force (BSF) was challenged by the petitioner, who argued that the promotions were illegal and violated the BSF (Seniority, Promotion, and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 (the Rules). 2. The Court noted that Rule 9 of the Rules provides for the retirement age of officers holding a rank higher than that of a Commandant as 58 years and for officers of other ranks as 55 years. 3. The Court also noted that the promotions of respondents 4 to 6 were made on an ad hoc basis to fill short-term vacancies caused by the leave of absence of other ADIGs. 4. The Court held that the promotions of respondents 4 to 6 were valid and in accordance with the Rules, as they were made to fill short-term vacancies and the officers were eligible for promotion as they were on the approved panel. 5. The Court further held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the promotions of respondents 4 to 6, as he was not in the approved panel for promotion in 1994 and was only included in the panel prepared pursuant to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in June 1996, after the promotions of respondents 4 to 6. 6. The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the ad hoc promotion procedure had been ignored, as the respondents had shown that respondents 4 to 6 were appointed on an ad hoc basis after getting approval from the concerned authorities and were later appointed on a regular basis against existing vacancies. 7. The Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to show any violation of the Rules or any illegality in the promotions of respondents 4 to 6, and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Commandant in the BSF, challenged the promotion of respondents 4 to 6 as ADIGs, alleging that the promotions were illegal and violated the BSF (Seniority, Promotion, and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the promotions of respondents 4 to 6 were valid and in accordance with the Rules, as they were made to fill short-term vacancies and the officers were eligible for promotion as they were on the approved panel. The Court also held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the promotions of respondents 4 to 6, as he was not in the approved panel for promotion in 1994 and was only included in the panel prepared pursuant to the DPC held in June 1996, after the promotions of respondents 4 to 6.
Issues: 1. Whether the promotions of respondents 4 to 6 as ADIGs were illegal and violated the BSF (Seniority, Promotion, and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978. 2. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the promotions of respondents 4 to 6.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the promotions of respondents 4 to 6 were valid and in accordance with the Rules, as they were made to fill short-term vacancies and the officers were eligible for promotion as they were on the approved panel. 2. The Court also held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the promotions of respondents 4 to 6, as he was not in the approved panel for promotion in 1994 and was only included in the panel prepared pursuant to the DPC held in June 1996, after the promotions of respondents 4 to 6.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition.
( 1 ) A. K. Gautam learned Counsel for the petitioner argued the matter with ability and skill being thorough on facts and law. He argued the matter for a considerable length of time. The case of the petitioner could be stated briefly in the following terms. The petitioner was directly recruited in the Border Security Force as an Assistant Commandant in the year 1966. In 1991 he was holding the post of Commandant Selection Grade. The gradation list of Group A (GD) Officers as on 1. 7. 1996 issued by the Directorate General Border Security Force with reference to SG Comdt. is as follows:
( 2 ) THE services of respondents 4 to 6 could be given shortly in the following manner:
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gautam, the order of promotion with reference to respondents 5 and 6 wore contrary to the rules and they had been made with a view to oblige and conferring largesse them and if respondent 6 had not been promoted in the way in which they have promoted the case of the petitioner could have been considered in the usual course and he would have been promoted as ADIG before his superannuation on 31. 1. 1997. The order of promotion for respondent No. 4 is in the following terms: RX ST 4 TUS RO 1. 3. 19512. 28:37 NR/01/ DE BLA SRL NO. 015108 OP ZEQ APA OF DT 282000 FM FSO BSF TO: HQ ADDL. DG BSF Jandk ALL FTR HQRs ALL SHQURS BSF INCLD ISD ALL TRG INSTNS/all STCS/sts-1/sts-II ALL BSF BNS ARTY REGTS BSF DIG (HQ) FHO/ho/army BSF - BY HAND GR BO BT G/c R 3262 FROM PERS (.) PROMOTION (.) FOLLOWING COMMANDANTS (SG) ARE APPOINTED AS ADDL DISC ON PROMOTION WITH EFFECT FROM 28 FEB. (.) ONE (.) SHRI S. K. SINGHA IRLA 5500 (.) TWO (.) SHRI B. R. MANGU IRLA 6536 (.) THREE (.) SHRI J. S. BAKSHI IRLA 6192 FOUR (.) SHRI K. K. GUPTA IRLA 6624 (.) FIVE (.) SH. V. P. S. MURTHY IRLA 6554 (.) SIX (X.) SH. PHUPINDER SINGH IRLA 5404 THEY WILL CONTINUE AT THEIR PRESENT PLACES OF POSTING TILL FURTHER ORDERS (.) CHARGE ASSUMPTION REPORT BE SENT TO ALL CONCERNED IMMEDIATELY.
( 4 ) ON 23. 3. 1995, the Additional Deputy Director (Personnel) wrote to the Deputy Director (Accounts) Pay and Accounts Division in the following terms : Sub: Promotion of Commandant (SC) to the Rank of Additional Dy. Inspector General in BSF. I am directed to convey sanction of the President to the appointment of following Commandants (Selection Grade) on promotion to the rank of Additional Deputy Inspector General on officiating basis with effect from 29. 2. 1995 or from the date of taking over charge, whichever is later :-2. They will draw their pay in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-150-5700 plus Special Pay of Rs. 200. 00 p. m. and other allowances as admissible from time to time. 3. Their posting orders have already been issued vide this HQ Signal No. R- 3262 dated 28. 10. 1995 and R-3286 dated 14. 3. 1995. 4. The above promotions have the approval of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, vide their UO No. A-13011 /3/94-Pers. III dated 27. 9. 1994.
( 5 ) MR. Gautam learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that para 4 above is a gross mispresentation offacts. On 27. 9. 1997 the implementation was made and approval had not been obtained for promotion from the Ministry of Home Affairs and therefore, the promotion of the 4th respondent was wholly void in law.
( 6 ) MR. Gautam, the learned Counsel submitted that the promotion order was issued on 28. 2. 1985 on the date of retirement of the 4th respondent and in law when the order of promotion was passed the 4th respondent was not holding the post of Commandant.
( 7 ) THE promotion order of the 5th respondent Mr. A. S. Choudhary was passed on 31. 8. 1995. The order reads as under : TO10 25/08/95 00:02:39 NRV 01 0000 DE BLA S/no 5390-91 0000 DTO 311900 FM FHQ TO ALL PRS/all SHQURS/all TRG INSTS/sts/stcs/isu/ CENWOSTO/csmt/all BNS/arty REGTS/dig HQ FHQ/hq ARTY BH. GR 100 BT UC NO R. 3280 - From pers. Promotion/posting. following Comdt. SG are appointed on promotion as Addl.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
