ORDER 1. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners numbering 17 for a direction of their promotion in BSF on the post of Head Constables or for an alternative direction that they be treated by respondents as Naiks from the date of their appointment as such, and accordingly they be given the seniority. 2. The petitioners were appointed on different dates as Constables in different battalions and units of Border Security Force (for short BSF or the Force). As the BSF, Tekanpur was establishing a Tear-Smoke Unit, the petitioners were later on allowed to join the Unit as Constables and were given the rank of ad hoc Naiks (Technical) and they continued to work in such capacity in the Unit. Out of them when about 10 petitioners were sought to be posted out, a petition was preferred by them. This Court in Rajendra Singh v. Union of India and others ( 1986 JLJ 202 ) held that the respondents shall not give effect to the condition of posting out in the promotion orders made in the case of each petitioner by forfeiting their right to be considered for regular promotion as contemplated under the Rules. 3. The Rules empower the competent authority for the assessment and promotion and also give out the cadre. Under Rule 5, the promotion of Constable to Lance Naik, from Lance Naik to Naik and from Naik to Head Constable has been provided. The authority is conferred on the Commandant. The promotions are required to be based on merits and suitability with due regard to the seniority as well. Rule 5 further provides that before any promotion, a member of the force is required to pass a pre-promotion course referred to in the sub-rule (3) of Rule 21, qualifying on any such other examinations as may be specified by the Director General of the Force from time to time. 4. The Rules has a proviso. The cases where the competent authority in the exigencies of service or for other reason, on the satisfaction that any such member who has not been able to pass the Pre-promotion Course deserves to be promoted. He may promote him subject to the prior approval of the next superior authority but still the member, under the Rules, is required to pass the next available pre-promotion Course. He may promote him subject to the prior approval of the next superior authority but still the member, under the Rules, is required to pass the next available pre-promotion Course. A member may be reverted back if he fails in passing the Pre-promotion Course. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners are governed by these Rules. Under Rule 12, a list is required to be maintained of the persons who are approved for promotion in different ranks: List 'A' is required to consist the names of the Constables found fit for promotion to Lance Naiks. The cadre for promotion from Lance Naik is to Naik, which is to be maintained under List 'B' and list 'C' is required to consist the names of Naiks, fit for promotion to Head Constables. 6. Looking at the provided cadre, the promotion of a Constable is required to be made to the Post of Lance Naik and a Lance Naik found fit has to be promoted as Naik. The promotion to Head Constable is from Naik. The next cadre provided for promotion of a Head Constable is to the post of Sub-Inspector, i.e. Platoon Commander. In this context, it would be useful to refer to Rule 14 which prescribes the procedure of selecting Constables for promotion: "Rule 14. Procedure of Selecting Constables for List 'A' and promotion from Constable for Lance Naik (1) Once in every year, the Commandant shall obtain nominations from the Company Commanders and other Sub-Unit Commanders of Constables as are qualified for promotion to the ranks of L/Naik and are considered suitable for being brought on List 'A'. (2) All such nominees shall have – (i) Completed not less than two years as Constables. (ii) attained such educational standards as my be specified by the Director General. (3) The Commandant shall constitute a Board consisting of himself or his Second-in-Command, a Deputy Commandant or an Astt. Commandant and a Company Commander, in rotation who shall assess the nominees in such manner as may be laid down from time to time by the Director General and prepare a list of names to be entered in List 'A' taking into consideration the anticipated vacancies for the year." Thereafter the Rule 15 provides the procedure of selecting Lance Naiks for List 'B', for promotions from Lance Naiks to Naiks. The subsequent Rules 16 and 17 provide the procedure for further promotions. 7. The subsequent Rules 16 and 17 provide the procedure for further promotions. 7. The petitioners who were Constables were given the rank of ad hoc Naiks (Technical). It is contended by the respondent that as in T.S.U. the post of Lance Naik which is higher in rank to Constable had not existed, the petitioners were given out of turn rank of ad hoc Naik (Technical) for the T.S.U. only. The petitioners contended that since they were given the rank of ad hoc Naiks and had continued as such, their officiating period shall have to be counted as and when they are regularised on the post. Their regularisation shall also relate back to the date from which they were officiating as Naiks. On this contention, it is further submitted that their subsequent promotions shall also have to be made considering their seniority. For this contention, the petitioners placed reliance on Rule 9 submitting that the seniority in rank is required to be determined on the basis of continuous regular appointment in that rank. With the above contention, there is an effort to build up the argument that the period of their officiating promotion would be counted on the regular posts and they would be entitled to further promotions in view of their seniority in that rank. 8. The petitioners' counsel, Shri R.D. Jain and the Sr. Counsel, Shri N.P. Mittal, for the respondent, both have placed reliance on Rajendra Singh's case (supra). Shri Jain seeks the support of his contention from the observations made in para 9 of the cited authority that because the basis of seniority is regular appointment in the ranks, the right of each petitioner to obtain regular appointment is secured by the joint mandate of the proviso to Rule 5 (1) and Rules 6, 9, 10, 14 and 15 and from the further observation that" I have therefore no hesitation to hold that by transferring them, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer a reduction in rank because such a course is not authorised by the Rules." 9. It is therefore also contended that the petitioners' right to be considered for regular promotion was so protected by this Court and the condition of their posting out was directed not to be given effect to. It is therefore also contended that the petitioners' right to be considered for regular promotion was so protected by this Court and the condition of their posting out was directed not to be given effect to. The petitioners' prayer, therefore, is that they are legible for their rank promotion, which could only be considered from the date of their officiating promotion and so their subsequent promotions were also required to be considered on the basis of their seniority. 10. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel submitted that the rank of the petitioners as Naiks was only for the purposes of T.S.U. but their promotions would only be made in their original unit or the battalions. By joining the TSU, the petitioners cannot be taken to have superseded their colleagues of their original unit. For the regular promotion of the petitioners, the requirement of the Rules had to be followed and complied with. The Rules could not be given go bye and that is what was found by this Court in Rajendra Singh's case (supra). 11. Rule 5 makes a provision of a Pre-promotion Course which is required to be passed by a member of the Force, but the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 provides that in the "exigencies of service or for other reasons, the condition precedent of passing of the course for the time being may be relaxed. It also empowers the competent authority to order promotion of a member or members of the Force, with the prior approval of the next superior authority, subject to the condition that the officer so promoted shall pass the next available pre-promotion course and on his failure he may be reverted". As alleged, even if the petitioners were appointed as ad hoc Naiks under Rule 20 which provides for the excellarated promotion, the competent authority is empowered to promote the person out of turn with the prior approval of the next superior authority, only to the next higher rank. That can be done on the consideration of the exceptional merit of such person. The petitioners, who were admittedly the Constables, even if be taken to be promoted under the scheme of Rule 20, under the "excellarated promotion" power, they could be only promoted to the next higher post as Lance Naiks. That can be done on the consideration of the exceptional merit of such person. The petitioners, who were admittedly the Constables, even if be taken to be promoted under the scheme of Rule 20, under the "excellarated promotion" power, they could be only promoted to the next higher post as Lance Naiks. Rule 14 provides that procedure for selecting the Constables for the list 'A' i.e. for promotion from Constable to Lance Naik. The requirement of the Rule is that once in every year the Commandant shall obtain nominations from the Company Commanders and other sub-unit Commanders, of the Constables as are qualified for promotion to the rank of Lance Naiks and are to be considered for the suitability of being brought on list 'A'. Once a person is promoted as Lance Naik, then Rule 15 would apply. It lays down the procedure for the selection of Lance Naiks for list 'B', which is prepared for the promotion of Lance Naiks to the post of Naiks. 12. It is not disputed that the petitioners were Constables before their alleged promotion. If their posting as ad hoc Naiks is taken as their 'excellarated promotion' the petitioners could only be promoted as Lance Naiks and not as Naiks as contemplated under Rule 20. 13. This Court in the earlier petition filed by some of the petitioners while considering their contention that they had passed some test observed that: "It cannot be said that the statutory requirement of Rule 12 or even of Rules 14, 15 and indeed of 21 was fulfilled in case of any of the petitioners." It was further observed that: "Even if it is accepted that the petitioners did pass such pre-promotion course for their regular promotion, they would not be absolved of the requirement contemplated under Rule 21 (a) because of what is contemplated in the proviso to Rule 5 (1) itself." 14. Under the Rules one thing is clear that with the other requirements, the seniority is also required to be given due consideration for the regular appointment in a rank. According to Rule 4, it is the merit-cum-suitability in all respects, with due regard to seniority, which provides the criteria of promotions. The seniority list is required to be maintained under Rule 6 battalion-wise or institution-wise or unit-wise. The transfers are permissible inter-battalion, inter-unit and inter-institution. According to Rule 4, it is the merit-cum-suitability in all respects, with due regard to seniority, which provides the criteria of promotions. The seniority list is required to be maintained under Rule 6 battalion-wise or institution-wise or unit-wise. The transfers are permissible inter-battalion, inter-unit and inter-institution. The basis for seniority has been provided under Rule 9 as 'to be the continuous regular appointment in that rank'. The officiating promotions could also be made in short terms vacancies. It is provided in Rule 11. A constable is to be promoted to the cadre of Lance Naik and Lance Naik to Naik and Naik to the Head Constable. 15. The petitioners were allowed to work as ad hoc Naiks immediately from the post of Constables. Considering the provisions made in the Rules and the statement made by the respondent in the return, para 1 of the Preliminary Pleas, it appears to be the correct position that since post of Lance Naik (the next higher rank to Constable) did not exist in TSU, these personnel were given out of turn posting of ad hoc Naiks (Technical) and such posting was meant for TSU only. Even assuming the argument of the respondents to be right, the petitioners could then be taken to be promoted to the post of Lance Naiks though they were allowed to officiate as Naiks and were continued in that capacity. In that situation, the argument advanced by Shri Mittal that the petitioners' promotion would be considered in their parent department does not appear to be correct. They would be taken to have been promoted as Lance Naiks from the post of Constables and that would be their status also in the parent unit. Their subsequent promotions and their seniority can only be fixed on the consideration of their such promotion. With no stretch of imagination, it can be taken that the petitioners, who were Constables, were given a long jump as Naiks skipping the next grade of Lance Naiks and the petitioners' contention that their placement in seniority as Naiks would be from the date of their appointment as ad hoc Naiks is difficult to accept being wholly illegal. The petitioners have also failed to show that in the TSU there were the posts in the rank of Lance Naiks and, yet they were appointed as ad hoc Naiks by way of promotion to the rank of Naiks. The petitioners have also failed to show that in the TSU there were the posts in the rank of Lance Naiks and, yet they were appointed as ad hoc Naiks by way of promotion to the rank of Naiks. The petitioners could only be promoted as Lance Naiks under the Rules but they were allowed to work as ad hoc Naiks since no posts of Lance Naiks had existed in TSU. 16. In the circumstances, even the continuous prolonged service does not invest any right in the petitioners to seek regularisation on the posts of Naiks. Admittedly, there is no appointment of the petitioners in substantive capacity on the posts of Naiks. It is also not permissible under the Rules. They were only allowed to work as ad hoc Naiks. The Apex Court in a very recent case of State of Orissa and another v. Dr. Pyasi Mohan Misra ( AIR 1995 SC 974 ) has held that: "... mere prolonged continuous ad hoc service does not ripen into a regular service to claim permanent or substantive status." 17. Regarding the chances of promotion of such members of the Force, it was observed in Rajendra Singh (supra) that: "Indeed, once in every year, in terms of Rules 14 and 15, lists for regular promotions are required to be prepared. The petitioners, therefore, have a right to be "assessed" for "regular" promotions. Therefore, though they may not be "posted out", to a lower rank, the respondents shall still have a right to ask the petitioners to offer themselves for 'assessment' ". 18. The promotions are permissible only under the Rules and that is the rational of Rajendra Singh (supra). 19. On the foregoing discussion, the petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed, but no order as to the costs.