Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 237 (JK)

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India

2009-05-15

SUNIL HALI

body2009
1. The petitioner seeks retrospective promotion from the date private respondents 5 to 8 have been promoted i.e. 13-11-1998 as Assistant Commandant. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed in the ministerial cadre as Sub Inspector. Consequently, he was promoted as Inspector on 24-9-1993. Petitioner underwent Integrated Combat Course from 16-8-1994 to 8-10-1994. This eligibility was required to be acquired by the petitioner for future promotion as Assistant Commandant. It is important to mention that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant from the ministerial staff, a person is required to qualify Integrated Course i.e. Platoon Weapon Course, Platoon Commandant Course and Company Commander Course. 3. The petitioner after qualifying Platoon Weapon Course, was detailed to undergo PC (TAC) Course, which was scheduled to be commenced at BSF Academy, Takenpur w.e.f. 15-1-1996 to 23-3-1996. The said course was subsequently postponed due to general election and was re-scheduled w.e.f. 28-10-1996 to 4-1-1997. Petitioner submitted an application to DIG (HQ) for detailing him on PC (TAC) Course commencing from Nov/ Dec. 1996. According to the respondents, it was intimated to petitioner whether he was willing to attend PC (TAC) Course, which was to be commenced at BSF Academy, Takenpur w.e.f. 13-1-1997 to 23-3-1997. It is reported that during this period, the petitioner was under order of posting to SHQ BSF, Ramban. It is stated that petitioner, who was detailed for posting to Ramban, managed to stay at HQ, Delhi. He was finally relieved on 13-5-1997 from HQ, Delhi to join at SHQ BSF, Ramban. It is stated by the respondents that petitioner had not submitted an application for attending PC (TAC) Course conducted at BSF Academy, Takenpur w.e.f. 23-3-1998 to 30-5-1998. Petitioner finally under went Company Commander Course w.e.f. 30-11-1998 to 6-2-1999 at BSF Academy, Takenpur. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Commandant on 12-3-2001. It is important to note that Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 7-9-1998 and on that date petitioner was not eligible for consideration for the post of Assistant Commandant. It is further contended that none of the private respondents was promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant without qualifying the Company Commander Course. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is further contended that none of the private respondents was promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant without qualifying the Company Commander Course. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the fact that he could not undergo the Company Commander Course, he was denied promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant w.e.f. 13-11-1998, when private respondents stated to have been promoted. Detailing persons for the above said course, is at the option of respondents. The fact of the matter is that promotions have to be made strictly in accordance with the rules. The petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant by the DPC on 7-9-1998, as he was not eligible. It is important to note that under Border Security Force (Assistant Commandants Recruitment) Rules, 1985 and the schedule appended thereto, it is mandatory that following course are undertaken by the person: i) Basic Course. ii) Platoon Weapons Course. iii) Company Commander Course. 6. Unless these courses are done by the person, he cannot be promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant. Admittedly, the petitioner was not eligible on the date when the DPC was convened. Petitioner could not claim promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant unless he had under-gone the aforementioned three courses. It may be the fact that deputing the person for training is at the option of the respondents, but the fact remains that promotions have to be made strictly in accordance with the rules. The contention of petitioner that private respondents have been promoted without undergoing the aforementioned courses, is not factually correct. It is stated that privates respondents had qualified all mandatory courses well before convening of DPC on 7-9-1998 by getting themselves detailed to undergo career courses well in time. 7. For the reasons stated above, I find no force in this petition, as the petitioner was not eligible to be promoted as Assistant Commandant when the DPC was convened on 7-9-1998. Petition dismissed alongwith connected CMPs.