DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CISF Vs. M CHANDRAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the respondents in OP No. 21032 of 2002. THE sole respondent is the petitioner therein. By judgment delivered on 12/11/2008 the learned Single Judge allowed the original petition. THE appellants have, aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal. THE brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner entered service as Head Constable (Driver) in the Central Industrial Security Force ('CISF' for short) on 2nd April, 1984. Upon successful completion of probation he was confirmed in service with effect from 1st January, 1987 by Ext. P1 order dated 22nd December, 1988. In the CISF there are two categories of Head Constables; Head Constable (General Duty) and Head Constable (Driver). THE next promotion post for Head Constables of both categories is Assistant Sub Inspector ('ASI' for short). As per the Recruitment Rules, a copy of which is produced as Ext. R3(a), Head Constables, who have completed five years' regular service in that category and have successfully completed the Promotion Cadre Course, are eligible to be promoted to the category of ASI. Promotion is by selection on the basis of service records and the vacancies in the category of ASI have to be filled up from among Head Constables (General Duty) and Head Constables (Driver) in the ratio of 5:1. It is also stipulated that in the absence of suitable Head Constables (Driver), all vacancies shall be filled up from among Head Constables (General Duty).

(3.) THE petitioner thereupon filed Ext. P8 representation before the Director General of the CISF contending that there was deficiency in applying the ratio of 5:1 in the case of Head Constables (Driver), that Head Constables (General Duty) were promoted in excess of the quota when eligible Head Constables (Driver) were available to be considered for promotion and that as against 525 Head Constables (Driver), who were eligible to be promoted, only 228 have been promoted, that there is thus a deficiency of 297 turns available to Head Constables (Driver) and, therefore, as he was eligible to be promoted with effect from 13/03/1993, he may be promoted with retrospective effect from that date. By Ext. P9 order dated 09/04/2002, the Assistant Inspector General of the CISF rejected the said representation. He thereupon filed OP No. 21032 of 2002 in this Court challenging Ext. P9 and seeking the following reliefs: