Inordinate delay in filing a petition challenging promotions may result in dismissal of the matter; courts generally refrain from disturbing established seniority without cogent reasons.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 20667/2020 (for Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5717/2020 & CM APPL. 20668/2020

3. The gravamen of the Petitioners who are 'direct-recruited' Assistant Sub-Inspector/Exe('ASI/Exe') in Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF") is that they have been unlawfully superseded in promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector, by Constables/Head Constables, through Limited Departmental Competition Examination (LDCE); By way of the present writ petition, they are inter alia seeking directions to the respondents to consider them to the next higher rank of Sub-Inspector ("SI") along with consequential benefits. They also seek direction/order to the respondents for publishing Seniority List by placing them as seniors to the private respondents who were Constable/Head Constable before being promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector through LDCE. Further, they seek a direction to declare the promotion of such private respondents as illegal.

4. Briefly stated, the petitioners stood appointed as ASI/Exe by way of direct recruitments and are presently serving in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors/Exe ("ASI") at different units. In the year 2010, for the first-time direct recruitment was made to the post of ASI/Exe. Prior thereto, the only way to become Sub-Inspector was by way of promotion from the post of Constable/Head Constable with feeder cadre of ASI/Exe. The cadre promotion was from Constable to Head Constable; Head Constable to ASI; and ASI to Sub Inspector.

5. In terms of a notification issued in the year 2010, the method of recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector became as (i) 50% by direct recruitment by SSC; (ii) 33% by promotion failing which by deputation; (iii) 17% by LDCE, failing which by promotion. The eligibility for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector became ASI (Exe) who has completed 6 years regular service in the rank; failing which eleven years combined regular service in the rank of Head constable (General duty) or Head Constable (Driver) out of which at least one year should be in the rank of ASI (Exe) being in medical category SHAPE-1 along with successful completion of promotion cadre course of SI (Exe).

6. It is contended that on the basis of provisional inter-se seniority list of sub-Inspectors (Exe) for the period from year 2010 to 2013, Petitioners came to know that a number of Constables/Head Constables have become SI through LDCE.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that after the introduction of the provision for direct recruitment to the post of ASI, the respondents took an in-principle decision not to select Constables/Head Constables for the post of SI through LDCE. To buttress his submission, he relies upon a letter dated 11th May, 2016 issued by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that it was clarified in the said letter that no Constable can become SI/Exe through LDCE but contrarily, the respondents continued to proceed with its old practice of promoting Constable/Head Constable to the rank of SI through LDCE. He further submits that the note attached with the notification further added that if juniors, who have completed their qualifying or eligibility service, were being considered for promotion, then the seniors, who have completed at least 2 years of eligibility service, are to be considered for the promotion. In spite of having served for more than two years, Petitioners have not been considered for promotion. They made representations dated 16th April, 2018 and 21st April, 2018 to the DG, CISF, requesting the removal of