The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to notional pay fixation and seniority as Assistant Commandant, emphasizing the fault of the department in not allowing completion of two years' duty in a duty battalion and the non-application of mind by the respondents in denying notional pay fixation to the petitioner.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated June 11, 2013, whereby the petitioner’s representation for notional pay fixation and grant of seniority in the rank of Assistant Commandant with effect from November 03, 2010 i.e. the date his juniors were promoted stood rejected; as well as for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to implement the judgment dated March 07, 2011 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 1461/2011.

2. The brief facts germane for adjudication of the present petition are that joining duty as Sub Inspector under C.R.P.F. on March 01, 2003, after completing training, petitioner was posted as Sub- Inspector at the 119th Bn. on April 01, 2004 and he remained with the said battalion till April 01, 2005. The respondents are treating this as service in a duty battalion. This means that the petitioner has served for one year in a duty battalion; as per the respondents.

3. On April 01, 2005, the petitioner was posted at CIAT Silchar, where he remained till March 2007. CIAT Silchar is treated as a training institute and hence service rendered there would not be service in a duty battalion.

4. To be promoted as an Inspector, requires a Sub-Inspector to clear the SSICC course. Petitioner was sent to undertake the course in the month of July 2006. He successfully cleared the same.

5. Earlier itself, realizing that non service in a duty battalion for two years may hamper the promotion of the petitioner, on October 30, 2006, petitioner made a representation requesting that he should be posted to a duty battalion so that when his turn, as per seniority, enures for promotion as an Inspector, he would be having the requisite two years service in a duty battalion. The department did not pay any heed to the said request made by the petitioner and continued to post him at CIAT Silchar till March, 2007.

6. In between, at a DPC which met on January 08, 2007, to consider the candidature of such Sub-Inspectors who fell within zone of consideration and were eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector, petitioner was not empanelled on account of not rendering two years service in a duty battalion. This resulted in persons junior to the petitioner being promoted as Inspectors.

7. Posting the petitioner in a duty battalion in March 2007 and treating the petitioner as having rendered two years service as a Sub-Inspector in duty battalions, petitioner was promoted as Inspector with effect from 6th June 2008.

8. Those who had already been given promotion over the petitioner, earning promotion as Inspector, have earned further promotion as Assistant Commandant with effect from November 03, 2010.

9. Notwithstanding petitioner being deputed to undertake mandatory course required to be successfully completed by Inspectors for promotion as Assistant Commandant and petitioner having successfully cleared the course, petitioner is being denied promotion on account of the reason his eligibility service rendered as an Inspector is being reckoned with effect from June 06, 2008.

10. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner submitted various representations for redressal of the said grievance, but the same were of no avail and the petitioner then approached this court by way of WP(C) 1461/2011.

11. Relevant would it be to note that way back on October 27, 2009, deciding a bunch of writ petitions; lead matter being W.P.(C)No.21900/2005, Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., a Division Bench of this court held that where the department is at fault in not letting a person complete two years duty in a duty battalion, non-fulfillment of the eligibility condition for promotion requiring two years service in a duty battalion cannot be held against the person concerned.

12. Noting that under the Rules a power of relaxation was vested in the cadre controlling ministry i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs, directions were issued to the paramilitary force concerned to refer the entitlem