HARI PRASAD RATURI Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL ITBP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time when the writ petition was filed the petitioners were working as Sub-Inspector (Education) and raised a grievance of not being promoted as Subedar (Education) in spite of having qualified at the departmental examination conducted in the year 1993 at which 13 Sub-Inspectors qualified, but only 6 were promoted. It is the further grievance of petitioner No.2 that he having qualified at the examination conducted in the year 1995 was wrongly denied a promotion on account of the select panel being drawn up with reference to the seniority as Sub Inspector and not on the basis of merit.

(2.) NO examination being conducted in the year 1994, at the examination conducted in the year 1995, 9 candidates were declared qualified. 4 out of the said 9, being respondents NO.3 to 6 had failed at the examination conducted in the year 1993 but they cleared the examination conducted in the year 1995 and being senior to petitioner NO.2 were promoted.

(3.) INSTANT writ petition was filed alleging that the mandate of Rule 61 and Rule 62 of the CRPF Rules was breached. It was alleged that the mandate of the Rules require a select panel to be prepared and names entered in the approved list based on merit and not as per the seniority of the candidates who clear the exam. It is further alleged that those whose names are entered in the E- list first would rank higher above those who clear the exam later and thus irrespective of seniority, promotions have to be effected accordingly.