JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Begum, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, the learned Asstt. S.G.I., for the respondents representing Union of India and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Commandant, (Legal), CRPF, who has rendered his valuable assistance.

1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance that he has been denied promotion from the post of Head Constable/GD, though he was qualified in all aspects. His prayer in the writ petition is as follows:-

For a direction to the respondent authority to bring him on the Special Approved List AA/GD-06/2011 as per original seniority and to promote him as aforesaid with retrospective effect ahead of his juniors.

2. The case of the petitioner as projected as are under:-

(i) The petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of "unauthorized absent" in the year 2007, vide order dated 09.02.2007.

(ii) On an appeal being preferred before the Departmental Appellate Committee, the said appellate authority modified the punishment by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service and awarded punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

(iii) In the year 2012, two of the persons similarly situated with the petitioner were granted promotion from the rank of Head Constable/GD to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspect.

(iv) Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a representation on 08.08.2012. The respondent authority, vide its order dated 29.08.2012, informed the petitioner that the petitioner could not found suitable due to unsatisfactory record of service.

Grounds of challenge by the petitioner:

3. Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel challenges the action of the respondent authorities on the following grounds:-

(i) The Standing order No. 6/99 provides for the methods etc. for governing promotions of the NG (Executive; Trade and Technical including signal personnel) and the case of the petitioner comes under said Standing order.

(ii) The Clause A (I) (e) of the said Standing Order No. 6/99, provides that for the purpose of promotion from Head Constable to Assistant Sub Inspector, the incumbent must not have had major punishment in preceding five years.

(iii) Sub Clause II (a) to (e) of Clause A provides the requirements/qualifications for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade.

(iv) The petitioner satisfies all the said criteria but taking the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner to be a major punishment, the respondent authority has denied the promotion to the petitioner, though stoppage of increment is a minor penalty. Thus, the respondent authority, according to Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel, erroneously relied on the said Clause (e) for refusing his clients rightful promotion.

(v) According to Mr. Mahanta, the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is applicable, so far relating to service condition of the Central Reserve Police Force personnel and the Rule 11 (iv) mandates that the withholding of increment of pay is a minor penalty. Therefore, according to him, the respondent authority cannot take recourse to clause A (II) (e) of the Standing order No. 6/99. More so, the major punishment i.e. dismissal from service was set aside and on the date of consideration of the promotion and there was no major punishment subsisting against the petitioner in the preceding 5 years.

(vi) Therefore, Mr. Mahanta submits, that the present petition is required to be allowed and a direction should be issued to the respondent to grant him the promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted.

Contention of the respondents:

4. The respondent Union of India contends as follows:

(a) That the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is not applicable to CRPF personnel. The service condition of CRPF persons are governed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act