A S PATHANIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Here is yet another writ petition making a grievance of the promotions made and the seniority fixed.

(2.) First, the bird eye view of the facts. By order dated June 12, 1980 the petitioners were directly appointed to the Gazetted post of Assistant Company Commander in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police on temporary basis with effect from June 2, 1980 "until further orders". On February 20, 1984, they were promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Company Commanders Gazetted Group A and on September 1, 1988 their ad-hoc promotion was regularised with effect from the date of their promotion on ad-hoc basis. On the surface, it all appears to be so orderly and smooth. Reality has been far from so. Soon after the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Commanders, Respondents 3 to 15 who, at that time, were working as non-Gazetted Subedars/lnspectors were promoted as Company Commanders.This was on October 24, 1980. And, on December 1, 1983 respondents 6 to 24 were also similarly promoted. Like respondents 3 to 15 they too were, at the time of promotion, wrrking as non-Gazetted Subedars/Inspectors. As if all this was not enough, on May 6, 1988 respondents 3 to 13 and 15 were further promoted to the next rank of Assistant Commandant.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that they having been directly recruited to the Gazetted post of Assistant Commander, Respondents 3 to 24 who were holding a non-Gazetted post with a lower scale of pay and who had been working under their control and supervision, could not be promoted to a rank higher than the one which the petitioners were holding without even considering them for such promotion and that the Union of India and the Director General, Indo Tibetan Border Police (Respondents 1and 2 respectively) have thereby not only violated the law in the matter of their promotions but also by disturbing their seniority.