ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. I.A. No. 2737 of 2017 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 77 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in para Nos. 4, 5 and 6, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay. We, therefore, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. I.A. No. 2737 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 143 of 2017 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner), being aggrieved and feeling dis-satisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3767 of 2015 dated 21st November, 2016 whereby the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Factual Matrix:— • This appellant (original Petitioner) who had applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) in pursuance of advertisement dated 2nd October, 2000 for the post of Constable (General Duty), Black Smith/Tin Smith. • As this appellant (original petitioner) was qualified in Industrial Training Institute, he was appointed on 9th January, 2001 as Constable (General Duty). Looking to Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, he was appointed on the post of Constable in Border Security Force on temporary basis. • This appellant reported for joining on 28th January, 2001. He was initially posted in the State of Tripura. The training was given from 9th September, 2002 to 8th March, 2003. He completed successfully the training and the certificate whereof is at Annexure-4. • Thereafter this appellant (original petitioner) was transferred to Bangalore on 23rd June, 2004 and he joined the duty at Bangalore. Thereafter he was transferred to Sri. Nagar vide order dated 10th May, 2007. • A representation dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure-5) was preferred by this appellant wherein he has stated that he cannot be transferred from technical post to general post. The representation preferred by this appellant was rejected on 6th May, 2013. • This appellant (original petitioner) has also prayed for promotion, but, the same was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 4th October, 2013. The representation preferred by this appellant was rejected on 6th May, 2013. • This appellant (original petitioner) has also prayed for promotion, but, the same was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 4th October, 2013. This aspect of the matter has been rightly pointed out in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3767 of 2015 dated 21st November, 2016. • Being aggrieved and feeling dis-satisfied by this rejection order, this appellant has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3767 of 2015 before this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 21st November, 2016 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 6. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant:— • It is submitted that the appellant in pursuance of the advertisement dated 2nd October, 2000, this appellant applied for the post of Constable in Border Security Force for Black Smith/Tin Smith and he was appointed as such on 9th January, 2001 (Annexure-2). He was initially posted in the State of Tripura where he completed successfully the training given by the respondents, thereafter he was transferred to Bangalore where he joined on 23rd June, 2004 and thereafter he was transferred at Sri. Nagar by order dated 10th May, 2007, but, as this appellant was appointed on technical post, he cannot be transferred on general post. This issue was raised by this appellant in his representation dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure-5) which was rejected on 6th May, 2013. As this appellant was appointed on technical post, he cannot be transferred on general post and because of this, he is also losing his promotion in the technical cadre post. These aspects of the matters have not been properly appreciated by the respondents nor by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 3767 of 2015 vide order dated 21st November, 2016 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. • It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that juniors to this appellant have been promoted on the post of Head Constable. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 7. • It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that juniors to this appellant have been promoted on the post of Head Constable. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 7. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Respondents:— • Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondents has vehemently submitted that this appellant (original petitioner) was never appointed on any technical post. It is a wrong notion in the mind of this appellant that he was appointed on a technical post. The advertisement dated 2nd October, 2000 was for the post of Constable (General duty) and looking to his appointment letter also which is dated 9th January, 2001 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) he was appointed as a Constable in Border Security Force. There are varieties of Constables in the Border Security Force for which the qualifications are also different, but, the facts remains that appointment on a technical post is altogether different. • It is further submitted by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that initially this appellant was posted in the State of Tripura, thereafter at Bangalore and lastly, he was transferred to Sri. Nagar in the year 2007 where he made a representation dated 10th July, 2007 that he was appointed on technical post, he cannot be transferred on general post of Constable. This representation was rejected on 6th May, 2013 as stated in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, specifically in para No. 18 supported by documentary evidence at Annexure R/4. This order was never challenged by this appellant before any Court. • It is further submitted by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that in the year 2006 the rules for technical cadre came into existence which is known as “Border Security Force-Motor Transport Workshop (non-Gazetted) Group-C Posts Recruitment Rules, 2006” (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2006”) enacted under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. As per this rule cut off date was 21st September, 2006. Thus, this appellant was appointed prior to 21st September, 2006 and as on that cut off date the appellant was never holding a post in a Motor Transport Workshop. As per this rule cut off date was 21st September, 2006. Thus, this appellant was appointed prior to 21st September, 2006 and as on that cut off date the appellant was never holding a post in a Motor Transport Workshop. • It is also submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that 10% seats are reserved for General Duty Constables to go for technical post in a Motor Transport Workshop. If this appellant is giving his irrevocable option and if he is ready to forgo his seniority as Constable (General Duty) and if he is otherwise suitable, he may be appointed on technical side and thereafter he can get promotion, not otherwise. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and hence this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons: 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reasons to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:— (i) This appellant is original petitioner who applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 2nd October, 2000 as he was certificate holder of Industrial Training Institute (ITI). He was also doing the work of Black Smith/Tin Smith in the Border Security Force. He was appointed on 9th January, 2001, (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). (ii) Looking to the appointment letter of this appellant (original petitioner), he was appointed as a Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force. (iii) Much has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that he was appointed on a technical side which is absolutely incorrect. (iv) It further appears that in the year 2001, he was initially posted in the State of Tripura and thereafter he was transferred at Bangalore where he joined the duty on 23rd June, 2004 and thereafter he was transferred to the State of Jammu & Kashmir where he joined the duty on 10th May, 2007 at Sri. Nagar. (v) It appears that this appellant (original petitioner) preferred a representation on 10th July, 2007 (Annexure-5) pointing out that he was appointed on technical post, he cannot be transferred on a general post. Nagar. (v) It appears that this appellant (original petitioner) preferred a representation on 10th July, 2007 (Annexure-5) pointing out that he was appointed on technical post, he cannot be transferred on a general post. This representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 6th May, 2013 which is at Annexure R/4 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3767 of 2015. This order of rejection was never challenged by this appellant in any Court of Law. (vi) Moreover, it appears that this appellant (original petitioner) was never appointed on a technical post nor in technical cadre, merely because a word “Black Smith/Tin Smith” is used, that does not mean that he is appointed on a technical post or in a technical cadre. The facts remain that advertisement was for the post of Constable (General Duty). Moreover, looking to appointment letter of this appellant dated 9th January, 2001, which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, this appellant was appointed as a Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force. (vii) For technical cadre, the rules came into existence from the year 2006 as stated by the counsel for the respondents. The Rules, 2006 is having the cut off date 21st September, 2006 and as on that cut off date, this appellant was never working on technical post nor in technical cadre. (viii) Much has been argued out by the learned counsel for the appellant about the promotion given to the juniors. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that promotions are to be given under the Rules, 2006 for those who have completed five years on technical post whereas this appellant (original petitioner) was never appointed on technical post. On the contrary, as per the Rules, 2006 there is 10% reservation for Constable (General Duty) to go in a technical cadre post by giving irrevocable option and by forgoing his earlier seniority. These two conditions have not been fulfilled in the facts of the present case. Hence, this appellant cannot be promoted in a technical cadre. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3767 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 21st November, 2016. 9. These two conditions have not been fulfilled in the facts of the present case. Hence, this appellant cannot be promoted in a technical cadre. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3767 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 21st November, 2016. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we see no reasons to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal as no error has been committed by the learned Single while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 3767 of 2015 vide order dated 21st November, 2016. 10. It appears that this appellant does not want to go to Sri. Nagar for his duty. Just for the sake of preferring the representation, this appellant has preferred more than one representations, one by one. 11. This Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2500/- which will be deposited by this appellant with the respondents within a period of six weeks, failing which, it will be deducted in five equal monthly installments, from his salary. LPA dismissed.