Delhi High Court
Rewati Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 October, 2023
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 13th October, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 12809/2023
REWATI PRASAD ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Avnish Singh, CGSC for UOI
with Mr. Gokul Sharma, GP,
Mr. Vishal Kumar Yadav,
Ms.Kanchan Kumari, Advocates and
Mr. Hemendra Singh, DC Law, BSF.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.53689/2023 (for early hearing)
1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.10.2023
15:51:21
3. Petition is take up for consideration today itself.
4. The next date of 06.11.2023 is cancelled.
W.P.(C) 12809/2023 & CM APPL.50465/2023 (stay)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of movement order dated 22.09.2023
transferring the petitioner from Training Directorate, FHQ, New Delhi
to 19 BN BSF, which is under the Frontier Headquarters, Guwahati.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been posted out prior to completion of the normal tenure of four years
at the place of posting. She submits that petitioner was posted to Force
Headquarter on 10.11.2022 and had joined on 02.12.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the normal
tenure of posting of four years is subject to the exigencies and
requirements of the Force and in cases of promotion, a normal tenure
of four years does not apply.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents refers to Rule 9 of the
Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) 2000,
which stipulates "a member of the Force upto and including the post
of Second-in-Command while posted in a static formation, shall be
posted to a duty Battalion on promotion to the next higher rank. The
tenure rule shall not be applied in promotion cases."
5. Proviso thereto stipulates that a member of the Force, who has
less than 2 years of service before attaining the age of superannuation
shall be exempted from application of this Rules.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.10.2023
15:51:21
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that earlier also
petitioner had served in Delhi from 18.12.2011 to 13.05.2016.
7. Admittedly, petitioner has more than 2 years of service
remaining. Petitioner is presently posted to a static formation and has
been promoted to the rank of Inspector (Ministerial) on 17.05.2023
and in terms of Rule 9, petitioner on earning promotion has to be
posted to a duty battalion. Consequently, petitioner has been posted
to a Duty Battalion and the normal tenure of posting does not apply as
petitioner has earned a promotion.
8. Since posting is an incidence of service and petitioner himself
seeks to rely on the posting policy which stipulates that on earning
promotion, member of the Force while posted in a static formation
shall be posted to a Duty Battalion and tenure rule shall not be applied
in promotion cases. Petitioner cannot impugn the movement order
posting him to a Duty Battalion.
9. We find no reason to interfere with the movement order in view
of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier
also other individuals had been accommodated in Delhi even on
promotion. It is for the competent authority to consider postings
keeping in view the facts and circumstances as well as the strength of
a Battalion and the availability of manpower as to whether one can be
retained in a particular position despite promotion or not. No member
of the Force can insist upon remaining in a static formation when the
Rule itself provides that promotion of a person who is already posted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.10.2023
15:51:21
in a static formation shall be posted to a Duty Battalion. Posting and
interest of individual are subservient to the requirements of the Force.
10. In the instant case, though petitioner had made a request,
however, the competent authority has not acceded to the same.
Consequently, we find no ground to interfere with the movement order
on that account also.
11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition. Petition
is, consequently, dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MANOJ JAIN, J
OCTOBER 13, 2023
st
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.10.2023
15:51:21
