Ajay Kumar Narula vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2379 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     WRIT PETITION(C) NO.1493 of 2000


AJAY KUMAR NARULA                                            ..... Petitioner

                                    versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                       .... Respondents

                                             Date of Decision: April 12, 2012

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner         :      None.

For the Respondents        :      Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak
                                  Mr. Pushpender Charak &
                                  Ms. Shubhee, Advocates


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


ANIL KUMAR,J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the letter dated 15th February,

2000, issued by the Commandant (Staff Selection), Border Security

Force, for obtaining option for the permanent absorption of the officers in

the Electrical Cadre stipulated in the said letter.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents should

be stopped from blocking the promotional avenues of the petitioner by

bringing outsiders in the cadre of the petitioner. According to the

petitioner, there are two different cadres in the Border Security Force, one

cadre is called the Engineering Cadre and the other is known as General

Duty cadre.

3. In the Engineering Cadre, there are two branches, namely,

Civil and Electrical, and the petitioner allegedly belongs to the Electrical

Branch of the Engineering Cadre. The petitioner further asserted that on

9th February, 1993, he was appointed as Sub Inspector / Junior Engineer

(Electrical) in the Engineering Cadre, as a direct recruit. After working

for three years as SI/JE(E) in the Engineering Cadre, the petitioner

became eligible to become an Inspector / JE (E) in the Engineering

Cadre, and he was not required to qualify any test or any study course for

becoming an Inspector /JE(E). According to the petitioner, he was

entitled for promotion as an Inspector / JE(E) on the basis of seniority -

cum - selection. The petitioner was aggrieved on account of option

obtained from the cadre of General Duty officers which was sought by

the respondent by letter dated 15th February, 2000, which has been

challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner also contended that for

promotion in the Engineering Cadre, the Inspector / JE(E) as also the

Assistant Engineer (Electrical)/AC were entitled for consideration.

4. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the

petitioner perhaps is not interested in pursuing the matter anymore as the

petitioner was promoted from Inspector / JE(E) to the rank of Assistant

Engineer (E)/Assistant Engineer in BSF Engineering Sector pursuant to

order dated 26th December, 2006. A copy of the said order has also been

produced by the learned counsel for the respondents disclosing that the

petitioner's name appears at Sl. No. 8 depicting that the petitioner had

been promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has also contended that

besides the promotion to the post of Inspector, the petitioner has got other

promotions as well.

7. In the circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to

dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioner and his

counsel.

8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.

9. The interim order dated 3rd April, 2000 directing that any

action taken by the respondents in pursuance to the letter dated 15th

February, 2000 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition, is

vacated.

10. The pending applications are also disposed of.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

APRIL 12, 2012 sl