The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the petitioner's service in BSF and NIA for eligibility to the post of ASP, based on the equivalence of his rank in BSF and NIA, and the interpretation of the relevant recruitment rules. The court's decision emphasizes the inclusion of the petitioner's service as DSP in NIA and Assistant Commandant in BSF for determining his eligibility for promotion, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the K. Madhavan case.

Headnote:
Eligibility Criteria - Promotion to ASP - Recruitment Rules - The court considered the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of ASP in the context of the petitioner's service in NIA and BSF. The court held that the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion to ASP in September 2016, based on his promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant in BSF, which was equivalent to the feeder post of DSP in NIA, and his placement in pay band-3 with grade pay of Rs.5,400. The court set aside the impugned order and directed a review DPC to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of ASP for the vacancy year 2017-2018, taking into account the period of service between 07.09.2011 and 04.05.2015. The impugned communications dated 08.02.2017, 13.02.2017, and 20.04.2017 were set aside as they were contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in the K. Madhavan case.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought recognition of his service in BSF for promotion to ASP in NIA. The Tribunal partially allowed the petitioner's application, considering his service as DSP in NIA from 03.01.2014 for eligibility to the post of ASP. The petitioner contended that his eligibility should be counted from 07.09.2011, while the respondents argued for eligibility from 05.05.2015. The court analyzed the petitioner's service history and relevant recruitment rules to determine his eligibility for promotion to ASP.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion to ASP in September 2016, based on his promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant in BSF, which was equivalent to the feeder post of DSP in NIA, and his placement in pay band-3 with grade pay of Rs.5,400. The impugned order was set aside, and a review DPC was directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of ASP for the vacancy year 2017-2018, taking into account the period of service between 07.09.2011 and 04.05.2015. The impugned communications dated 08.02.2017, 13.02.2017, and 20.04.2017 were set aside as they were contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in the K. Madhavan case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the relevant recruitment rules to determine the petitioner's eligibility for promotion to ASP in NIA, considering his service history in BSF and NIA. The court addressed the dispute regarding the commencement date of the eligibility period and the classification of the petitioner's service as regular service for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant recruitment rules, the equivalence of the petitioner's rank in BSF and NIA, and the recognition of his service history for eligibility to the post of ASP. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the K. Madhavan case to support the inclusion of the petitioner's service as DSP in NIA and Assistant Commandant in BSF for determining his eligibility for promotion.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, directed a review DPC to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of ASP for the vacancy year 2017-2018, and ordered the setting aside of the impugned communications dated 08.02.2017, 13.02.2017, and 20.04.2017. W.P.(C.) No.6686/2021 was allowed, while W.P.(C.) No.11103/2021 was dismissed. Pending applications were closed, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Table of Contents

Preface

Background

Submissions on behalf of Jasveer Singh [i.e., the original applicant]

Submissions on behalf of UOI and NIA

Analysis and Reasons

Conclusion

Preface:-

1. These are writ petitions directed against the order dated 07.01.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in O.A. No. 2273/2017.

2. For the sake of convenience, Jasveer Singh [i.e., the original applicant], who is the petitioner in W.P.(C.) 6686/2021, will be hereafter referred to as the petitioner. Likewise, the Union of India (UOI) and others i.e., the Director General, National Investigation Agency (NIA), in effect, NIA and the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), in effect, DoPT, will be collectively described as the respondents, unless the context requires otherwise.

3. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not given him the benefit of the service rendered by him in his parent department i.e., the Border Security Force (BSF), prior to his absorption in NIA.

3.1. According to the petitioner, the failure to recognise the service rendered by the petitioner in BSF in a post which was the equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (in short "DSP") in NIA, marred his opportunity for being considered for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police [in short "ASP"] in the vacancy year 2017-2018.

4. The position of the NIA is rooted in Ministry of Home Affairs [in short MHA] communication, dated 13.02.2017 which, in turn, is based on the opinion of the DoPT in the communication dated 08.02.2017; which was rendered in the context of promotion to the post of Head Constable, the feeder post for which was, Constable.

4.1. The DoPT, via its communication dated 08.02.2017 addressed to respondent no.1/UOI, in effect, MHA, had taken the position qua the eligibility criterion in the Recruitment Rules [in short "RRs"] which provided that for promotion to the post of Head Constable, the concerned person should have rendered five years of regular service in the feeder post [i.e., the post of Constable], and that the period of five years would commence from the date of absorption. As indicated above, this opinion was rendered qua NIA to MHA in the context of promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable.

4.2. Given this position, the respondents took the same stand in respect of the petitioner, and thus, via communication dated 20.04.2017 informed the petitioner that, he would attain the eligibility criteria for being considered for the post of ASP only on 04.05.2020 for the year 2021-2022.

4.3. In other words, according to the respondents, the eligibility criteria given in the Recruitment Rules i.e., five years of regular service in NIA would be counted from the date of absorption in the NIA, and therefore, the petitioner would become eligible only on 04.05.2020, having been absorbed in NIA on 05.05.2015.

4.4. Therefore, as indicated above, as per the stand of the respondents, the petitioner could be considered for promotion to the post of ASP only in 2021-2022.

5. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of an original application i.e., O.A. No.2273/2017. The petitioner, thus, assailed the order of the DoPT dated 08.02.2017, the communication of MHA dated 13.02.2017 and the communication dated 20.04.2017, addressed by the NIA to the petitioner.

5.1. Besides this, the petitioner also sought the following directions:

(i) That the services rendered by him in BSF in the rank of Assistant Commandant [which according to him was equivalent to the post of DSP in NIA] should be considered for promotion to the post of ASP in NIA.

(ii) The petitioner should be considered for promotion to the rank of ASP in NIA qua the vacancy year 2017-2018, and therefore, a consequential direction was sought for convening a Departmental Promotion Committee [