SUB INSPECTOR KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Havaldar in the Border Security Force, he has since been promoted to the next higher rank of a sub-inspector in terms of an order dated 27th December, 2005, a copy whereof has been enclosed as annexure P-1 to the writ petition. His grievance, now, is that he ought to have been promoted with effect from the year 2002 as he was eligible for such promotion in that year. He has, therefore, sought a mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the rank of sub-inspector from February, 2002 when he first became eligible for such promotion and to grant him all consequential benefits like arrears of pay, seniority etc.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yadunath Singh, Deputy Commandant appearing for the respondents. Apart from the fact that the petitioner's grievance against his alleged supercession in the year 2002 is barred by laches and inordinate delay, there appears to be a specific reason why he could not be promoted in the earlier years. The record placed before us by Mr. Yadunath Singh shows that promotion in the earlier years could not be granted to the petitioner as he had failed to meet the benchmarks fixed by the DPC for that purpose. That being the position and in the absence of any allegation that the benchmarks fixed for promotion in terms of the courses to be passed and training to be undergone and the marks to be obtained by the candidates were unfair, the petitioner's consideration for promotion in the earlier years must be deemed to be proper. Simply because the petitioner could have been promoted in the year 2002 would not entitle him to a mandamus. What is equally if not more important is that he must meet the benchmark and satisfy the norms fixed for such promotion. Since the respondents had considered the petitioner for promotion every time there was a promotion in the force and since the said consideration did not fructify in an order of promotion because of the petitioner's failure to meet the benchmark, we see no reason to interfere or to issue a mandamus as prayed for.

(3.) The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.