Administrative inaction by government bodies can result in significant prejudice to employees, necessitating timely actions to uphold employee rights.

Headnote:(A) BSF (Engineering Officers) Recruitment Rules, 2012 - Petition filed for quashing rejection of representations to convene Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for filling vacant posts of Commandant (Works) - Petitioners argued for promotion eligibility and relaxation of residency period - Respondents contended their position was justified under existing rules (Paras 1-4).

(B) Judicial Discretion in Administrative Decisions - Court found that pending amendments and recognized inaction resulted in vacancies which hindered organizational functioning and affected petitioners' career prospects (Paras 9-10).

(C) Decision Directives - Court directed BSF to finalize the related proposal within four weeks, with penalties for delays in responding (Paras 10-10).

Findings of Court:
The BSF must address the promotion issues raised within a specified timeframe to prevent ongoing prejudice to the petitioners.

Issues: Whether the petitioners' rights to promotion are being adequately respected and whether delay in implementing changes is tenable.

Ratio Decidendi: The necessity for administrative bodies to act within reasonable timelines and ensure fair treatment of employees, particularly when inaction has substantial consequences.

Result: Petition disposed with directions to BSF and MHA for prompt action on the proposals.

Table of Content
1. eligibility for promotion in bsf engineering cadre (Para 1 , 2)
2. contentions of petitioners regarding dpc and recruitment rules (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. respondent's acknowledgment of recruitment issues (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's directions regarding decision timelines (Para 10 , 11)
5. conclusion and disposition of the petition (Para 12)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners for issuing a writ of certiorari to the respondents to quash the orders dated 04.09.2020 and 13.05.2021, vide which representations of petitioners seeking to convene Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), has been rejected.

2. Pertinently, petitioners belong to the Engineering Cadre in BSF, who claim to be eligible for promotion to the post of Commandant (Works) and seek their promotion to the two vacant posts, rather than filling them up with other Officers through deputation in terms of BSF (Engineering Officers) Recruitment Rule, 2012 (henceforth referred to as the `Recruitment Rules of 2012'). In addition, petitioners are also praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to carry out necessary amendments in the `Recruitment Rules of 2012' to the effect that post of Commandant (Works) be filled on promotion in the larger interest of Engineering Cadre Officers of the Force who have duly retained the residency period of 2IC (Works) as 2 years instead of existing 5 years for promotion to the rank of Commandant (Works) i.e. for a direction to the respondents to relax Rule 11 of the `Recruitment Rules of 2012' to consider the combined Group A and B services of the petitioners for the purpose of promotion, instead of Group A service only and thereafter, to fill the existing two vacancies of Commandant (Works) in BSF on promotion basis instead of filling through deputation, by convening DPC in respect of eligible officers.

3. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that the petitioners had made representations to the respondent-BSF to convene a DPC to fill up the two vacant posts of Commandant (Works) by the eligible officers of Engineering Cadre in BSF instead of officers belonging to other Organizations through deputation, however, their representations have been rejected on the ground that as per the `Recruitment Rules of 2012', total three (03) posts of Commandant (Works) are authorized i.e. 33% by promotion and 66% by deputation (including short term contract) and as such only one (01) post is authorized in promotion quota, which is already filled up. In addition, respondent/BSF has also reasoned that as per `Recruitment Rules of 2012', Five (05) years' regular service in the grade of 2IC (Works) and minimum fifteen (15) years of Group A service is required for promotion to the rank of Commandant (Works).

4. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that there are only three posts of Commandant (Works), out of which two kept for deputation are lying vacant since implementation of `Recruitment Rules of 2012' and no cadre officer is being promoted, which has resulted in disparity with the CAPFs and injustice with the Engineering Officers having rendered more than 24 years of services to the Force.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioners has also submitted that the proposal for amendment in `Recruitment Rules of 2012' by the Directorate General Border Security Force (Engineering Branch) on behalf of respondent No.3, has been sent to the respondent No.1- Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), vide communication UO No. 122/02/2021/Recruitment-ENGG/BSF/507 dated 09.02.2022.

6. Mr. Harish Vaidyanthan Shankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-MHA as well as respondent No.3-BSF, on instructions submits that the proposed amendment is under discussion and deliberation and the aforesaid proposal dated 09.02.2022 has not been received by the MHA.

7. Upon hearing learne