The court ruled that upgraded ACRs must be considered for promotion, and failure to do so violates the right to equality under Article 14.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily challenging the order of the HQ DG, BSF dated February 12, 2015 rejecting the petitioner’s request for restoring his seniority in the rank of Commandant from the date his immediate junior has been promoted i.e., July 01, 2017. The impugned order dated February 12, 2015 is reproduced as under :-

“Sub; REFIXATION OF SENIORITY: CASE OF SHRI GURIQBAL SINGH, COMDT (IRLA NO. 19248134) OF 39 BN BSF Please refer to your Letter No. IG(Spl Ops)- Od/Estt/Sr. List- W.P.(C) 779/2018 Page 2 of 18 CO-39Bn/2014/10582-86 dated 29.12.2014.

2. In this connection, I am directed to inform that Shri Guriqbal Singh, then 2IC (Now Comdt) was assessed as 'Unfit' for promotion to the rank of Comdt by the DPC held on 15.03.2010 due to his confidential record of service. Further, in accordance to DoP&T's OM dated 13.04.2010, below bench mark ACRs for the years 2005-06 and 2007-08 were communicated to the officer and subsequently upgraded for 'Good' to Very Good' and Average' to 'Good' respectively.

Though, the ACRs of the officer for the years 2005-06 and 2007-08 were upgraded from 'Good' to 'Very Good' and 'Average' to 'Good' respectively, but his case for promotion to the rank of Commandant w.r.to DPC dated 15.03.2010 cannot be reviewed as D0P85T OM dated 13.04.2010 clearly states that it would be applicable for future DPCs only. In this connection FHQ Pers Dte (Confd Section) letter No. A- 28012/14/2010/CC/Pers/BSF/5328-5627 dated 10.12.2010 refers.

3. Keeping in view of the above, the instant representation of the Officer has been examined in details at this Dte and rejected by the Competent Authority being devoid of merit.

4. The officer concerned may be informed accordingly.”

2. The facts as noted from the petition are that, the petitioner joined Border Security Force (‘BSF’, for short) as Assistant Commandant (Direct Entry) (‘AC’, for short) on January 04, 1992. His seniority at the time of joining the force was fixed between Sanjeev Kumar (IRLA No.: 19148038) and Lakhminder Gill (IRLA No.;

19148199) in the gradation list of Group ‘A’ General Duty officer. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant on October 07, 1998 and further to the rank of Second-in Command (‘2IC’, in short) on June 03, 2005. During his promotion, his rank / seniority remained unchanged as he was kept between Sanjeev Kumar W.P.(C) 779/2018 Page 3 of 18 and Lakhminder Gill.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that the Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’, for short) was constituted for considering the promotion of 2IC's to the rank of Commandant which included the name of the petitioner. The DPC was held by HQ DG BSF, New Delhi on March 15, 2010 but surprisingly the petitioner's name did not figure in the promotion orders. Later the petitioner upon making enquiries found that, because the HQ DG BSF (Pers. Dte.) vide its Order L/No.A- 1901 l/05/2010/CC/Pers/BSF/3459-61 dated July 16, 2010 had graded the petitioner in his ACR’s for 2005-06 and 2007-08 as „Good‟ and „Average‟ respectively, which were below benchmark, his name never figured.

4. Dr. S.S. Hooda, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, vide order dated March 15, 2010, 2IC’s who were junior to the petitioner were promoted to the rank of Commandant with effect from July 01, 2010. The juniors superseded the petitioner and became seniors. Being aggrieved by the decision of the DPC, the petitioner made a representation to the HQ DG BSF, New Delhi for convening a Review DPC and for restoration of his Seniority in the rank of Commandant at par with his juniors. He also made a representation dated August 03, 2010 to the HQ DG BSF, New Delhi for upgradation of his „Below Benchmark‟ ACR grading. The Below Benchmark ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2005-06 and 2007-08, were in fact then upgraded as ‘Very Good‟ and ‘Good‟ respectively.

5. He stated that the petitioner was considered for promotion to th