Executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions, and the action of the respondents in counting seniority based on executive instructions rather than the statutory rules was illegal.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The petitioners have filed this petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

"i) That the order dated 19th June, 2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to revise the pay of the petitioners as directed by the Hon''ble Court and in pursuance to the letter dated 15.4.2011 with all consequential benefits.

ii) That the respondents be directed to promote the petitioners as Head Constables with effect from 2002 with all consequential benefits."

2. It is not in dispute that as regards A.C.P., the same already stands granted from the due date during the pendency of the writ petition and now the only question that survives for adjudication is one relating to the promotion of the petitioners. Petitioners No.1 to 3 were recruited as Constables with the respondents and joined in the year 1986. Petitioners No.1 and 3 joined on 13.10.1986, whereas, petitioner No.2 joined on 17.11.1986. As regards, petitioner No.4, he joined with the respondents on 27.08.1990. It is averred that the petitioners were entitled to be promoted to the post of Head Constable and granted A.C.P. with effect from 1999, however, the respondents informed that there was ban on promotions and, therefore, no higher rank can be given to them. While, on the contrary, the juniors to the petitioners, who were working in other Battalions were promoted to the next higher post. The right for consideration of the petitioners was, therefore, infringed when the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioners for promotion and juniors were promoted as Head Constables in other Battalions. This constrained the petitioners to file detailed representations, but to no avail. The respondents informed that the posts of L/NK(GD) and NK(GD) were not abolished in SSB, whereas, in other CPMFs, the posts mentioned had been abolished. That being the case, the respondents could not have adopted two parameters to the employees working in one institution as Constables working in other Battalions were given promotion to the next higher post of Head Constable, NK/L/NK, whereas, the petitioners were ignored for such promotions only on the ground that there was ban on the promotions.

3. It is in this background that the instant petition has been filed for the reliefs as already set out above.

4. The respondents opposed the petition by filing reply wherein it has been averred that before intermixing of SSB Units, the seniority of Constables (GD), LNK(GD) and NK(GD) was being maintained at Battalion level, hence, there was no relevance of promotions of junior Constables/LNK or NK(GD) of other units with the petitioners as the seniority was being maintained at the respective unit level. In addition thereto, it has been averred that even though the petitioners had completed 12 years of regular service, but did not qualify the prescribed promotional courses up till 09.10.2002 and, therefore, they were not promoted.

5. In rejoinder to the reply, in addition to reiterating the averments as contained in the writ petition, it is contended that as far as the promotion to the post of Head Constable/Naik is concerned, no training or course is required to be undertaken by the incumbent, who is matriculate, like the petitioners.

6. This petition came up for consideration on 16.09.2016 and this Court passed the following orders:-

"Heard for some time. Let respondents file better particulars elaborating on the averments made in para 4 of the reply, more particularly with regard to the period when the process of promotion was kept in abeyance and also explain the circumstances as to how and why the constables in the other units were promoted as per existing vacancies and seniority in their respective units. Let needful be done within six weeks. List on 26th October, 2016."

7. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, the respondents filed supplementary affidavit wherein it was stated that the SSB was brought under the