Judgment

1. The petitioner is aggrieved and assails the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 to 14 from the rank of Second-in-Command (2IC) to the rank of Commandant made in supersession of the superior claim of the petitioner, who was senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 14 in the rank of Second-in-Command. The petitioner also assails two communications issued by respondent No.2 dated 11.11.2011 and 29.11.2012, whereby the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Commandant with effect from the date of such promotion of respondent Nos.4 to 14 has been rejected. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to promotion to the rank of Commandant with effect from the date, the private respondents have been so promoted. The petitioner also claims that in the rank of Commandant he is entitled to be shown senior to the private respondents.

2. With the view to appreciate the grounds of challenge, it would be necessary to briefly notice the background facts leading to the filing of instant petition.

3. The petitioner appears to have joined his service as Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 01.12.1994 as a direct recruit. The respondent Nos.4 to 12 also entered the said service as direct recruits, some along with the petitioner and some after the petitioner. The petitioner claims and which claim is not refuted by the official respondents, that he ranks senior to respondent Nos.4 to 12 in the gradation list of Assistant Commandant, Dy. Commandant and even at the Second-in-Command level. While the petitioner was serving as Dy. Commandant in the CRPF, he proceeded on deputation in the Madhya Pradesh Police on 03.05.2006 initially for a period of three years. Before the petitioner proceeded on deputation, he submitted an undertaking to the respondents, undertaking therein that in the event, the petitioner, while on deputation, does not find his name in the panel for promotion to the next higher rank due to non-fulfillment of the condition of two years mandatory service in duty battalion as Dy. Commandant, it would be the sole responsibility of the petitioner and that he would not claim any seniority over his juniors, who would have otherwise been promoted. The petitioner, however, was given Performa promotion under NBR to the rank of Second-in-Command while on deputation. On the request of Madhya Pradesh government, the deputation of the petitioner was, however, extended by two years. At the time of extension also, the petitioner submitted similar undertaking and agreed not to claim promotion in the absence of mandatory field service. The promotions from the rank of Second-in-Command to the rank of Commandant were considered by the DPC held on 19.03.2010. Although, the petitioner was meeting the prescribed benchmark for promotion in terms of his ACRs grading but did not have even a single day’s mandatory field service as Second-in-Command in a duty Battalion. Being ineligible on the aforesaid score, the petitioner was graded by the DPC as ‘UNFIT’. The petitioner was, thus, not brought on the panel of promotion. The next DPC for promotion of Second-in-Commandant to the rank of Commandant for the year 2011-12 was not held allegedly due to non-availability of relaxation in eligibility criteria from DOP&T of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The DPC was, thus, held for the year 2012-13 on 01.02.2012 and by this time the CRPF Group “A” Officers (GD) Recruitment Rules, 2001 (‘Rules of 2001’ for short) had been revised and the new CRPF Group “A” Officers (GD) Recruitment Rules, 2010 (for brevity ‘Rules of 2010’) had come into existence. This time, the DPC found that, though, the petitioner was meeting the other eligibility criteria and benchmarks for promotion but was falling short of two years mandatory field service in the rank of Second-in-Command as on the crucial date of DPC i.e. 01.02.2012. The petitioner was given the benefit of relaxation as it was found that there was likelihood of the petitioner’s completing hal