The court mandated timely action on promotion vacancies to maintain operational efficiency and required reasoned orders for differing decisions across forces.

Headnote:(A) Promotion Rules - ITBP Recruitment Rules, 2008, Rule 10 - CISF Recruitment Rules, 2002 and 2010, Rule 5 - Petitions seeking direction to promote cadre officers to the rank of DIG by diverting vacancies reserved for IPS officers due to lack of promotions affecting operational efficiency. (Paras 2-9)

(B) Administrative Decisions - Ministry of Home Affairs' decision to temporarily divert DIG posts from IPS quota to cadre officers for CRPF and BSF sets a precedent for other forces. (Paras 6-9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners are personnel from CRPF, CISF, and ITBP seeking promotion to DIG rank citing stagnation and lack of available vacancies in IPS quota, with a notable number of DIG posts remaining unfilled. (Paras 1-5)

Findings of Court:
The court directs that outcomes regarding promotions should be communicated to petitioners expeditiously and that decisions regarding CISF and ITBP promotions must be made within three months. (Paras 8-10)

Issues: Whether to permit diversion of DIG posts for cadre officers and consider operational impact of vacant posts. (Paras 5, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasizes the necessity of timely decision-making on promotion vacancies to maintain operational efficiency and requires reasoned orders if decisions differ across forces. (Paras 8-10)

Result: Petitions disposed of with directions to communicate decisions and conduct DPC for promotions.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek promotion and vacancy diversion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. grievance regarding promotions and vacancies. (Para 5)
3. direction for decision on promotion vacancies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. petitions disposed with specific directions. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The issue(s) raised in these petitions and the relief(s) sought are similar, therefore, these petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment, treating W.P.(C) 5648/2021 as the lead matter. We note that W.P.(C) 5648/2021 has been filed by the personnel belonging to CRPF, W.P.(C) 7119/2020 has been filed by the personnel belonging to CISF and W.P.(C) 7195/2020 has been filed by the personnel belonging to ITBP.

2. Vide W.P.(C) 5648/2021, petitioners are seeking quashing of office memorandum dated 12.04.2021, whereby the request of the petitioners for diversion for 08 posts of DIG from IPS quota to the Cadre officers has been rejected; directions to the respondents to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General from Commandant and to the rank of Commandant from Second in Command in line with the OM dated 08.05.2017 alongwith other reliefs.

3. Vide W.P.(C) 7119/2020, petitioners are seeking directions to respondents to invoke Rule 5 of the CISF Recruitment Rules, 2002 and 2010 which provides for relaxation of rules in respect of any class or category of persons and thereby divert the vacancies which have been kept vacant for IPS officers to cadre officers' after obtaining necessary approval from the Competent Authority/MHA and once such posts are diverted, hold a DPC to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the rank of DIG w.e.f. the date the vacancies for such posts have been lying vacant.

4. Vide W.P.(C) 7195/2020, petitioners are seeking directions to respondents to invoke Rule 10 of the ITBP Recruitment Rules, 2008 which provides for relaxation of rules in respect of any class or category of persons and thereby divert the vacancies which have been kept vacant for IPS officers to cadre officers' after obtaining necessary approval from the Competent Authority/MHA and once such posts are diverted, hold a DPC to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the rank of DIG w.e.f. the date the vacancies for such posts have been lying vacant.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that in W.P.(C) 7195/2020, vide order dated 29.09.2020, while issuing notice, this Court had observed as under:

"3. The grievance of the 4 petitioners, claiming to be Commandants in the respondents Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), is that though fulfilling the eligibility requirements for the next promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG), they are not being promoted as DIGs owing to lack of vacancies in the promotion quota of the said post of DIG.

4. It is their case, that there are 71 posts of DIG in ITBP and of which, as per the Rules, 57 are to be filled up by promotion from the feeder cadre and 14 by deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) Officers. They contend that though all the 57 posts to be filled up by promotees are occupied, of the 14 posts of DIG to be filled in by IPS Officers on deputation, only 3 are filled up and the rest 11 are vacant. They further plead that the post of DIG is an operational post and the factum of the said posts remaining vacant ultimately affects the functioning and operations of the Force. It is further their case that on the other hand, there is stagnation amongst the promotes, with the petitioners in spite of having 27 years of service, having stagnated now for long at the post of Senior Commandants.

5. The petitioners claim that though under Rule 10 of the ITBP, General Duty Cadre (Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2018, there is a power of relaxation whereunder the DIG posts of the deputation quota can be diverted to the promotee quota and in exercise of similar Rules in the other Central Arm