Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 7 August, 2013
th
Date of Decision: 24 September, 2013
+ WP(C) No.550/2012
R.K. NIMORIA, DY. COMDT.(RETD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Bansal, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj,
Advocate with Mr.
Bhupinder Singh, Deputy
Commandant, BSF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
DEEPA SHARMA, J.
1. By way of this writ petition filed in the year 2012, the
petitioner has made the following prayers:-
a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider and promote the petitioner to the rank of Inspector w.e.f.
th
16 October, 1971 when his junior batch mates of the year 1968
batch Sub- Inspectors were so promoted without his knowledge
and from the back of the Petitioner and pass an order with regard to
his future promotion to respective posts on due date when similarly
situated employees were considered and promoted and to fix
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 1 of 41
properly at each stage of seniority in respective posts and grant all
consequential benefits.
th
b. set aside the order dated 11 October, 2011 passed by
the DIG, BSF.
2 At the outset it is pertinent to mention that this is the third
round of litigation between the parties. The first writ petition no.
th
7639 /2001 was filed by petitioner on 19 December, 2001 and the
th
second writ petition no. 15159/2006 filed on 27 September, 2006.
th
He also filed Review Petition No. 223/2011 on 28 March, 2011
and then the contempt petition no. 791/2011 which was decided on
th
24 October, 2011.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled
in BSF as Sub-Inspector (Direct Entry) on 17 May, 1968 as a
Scheduled Caste in the reserved category. After completion of
th
basic training at BSF Academy Takanpur w.e.f 17 May, 1968 to
th
17 February, 1969, he was posted to 02 Bn BSF at Dartiwala,
Gujarat then deployed at Rajasthan under Punjab Fontier till Oct
1970. Thereafter, he was posted to 103 Bn BSF, Hazaribagh
(Bihar) at Training Centre and School and remained posted there
till 18.10.1975. He was posted to 52 Bn BSF in Oct 1975 and
further posted to 47 Bn BSF in 1976 under erstwhile North-
Western Frontier, Srinagar.
4. The petitioner was considered for promotion as Inspector by
th
DPC held in Srinagar Frontier on 09 October, 1975. The said
DPC recorded following remarks against the name of the
petitioner:-
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 2 of 41
“FAIL IN RECORDS AND IN AGGREGATE EVEN
AFTER RELAXATION AS SCHEDULED CASTE.”
5. Thus he was not empanelled by the said DPC. Some Sub-
Inspectors got promotion as Subedar against existing vacancies in
the Frontier where they were posted.
6. The petitioner remained posted at the Training Institution
rd
from October 1970 till 1975 (103 Bn. BSF) Hazirabagh, Bihar
th
and was promoted as a Subedar thereafter with effect from 06
March,1978 against the vacancies existing in the
Frontier/Headquarter where he was posted at the time of DPC. Till
1975, the promotions were made on the basis of seniority at
Frontier/State where the personnel were posted.
7. Later, when it was decided by BSF for centralization of
promotion/seniority of Sub- Inspectors and above, in order to
extend same benefits to the petitioner as given to Shri B.R. yadav,
P.C. Sharma & D.S. Ahluwalia and a few others, a review DPC
was convened and seniority of 357 persons including the petitioner
in the rank of Inspector was revised vide order No. 17/49/94-
Pers/BSF dated 09.11.1994. An attempt was made to hold review
DPC‟s to consider the petitioner and others for promotion to the
rank of Assistant Commandant and above. However, in view of
th
the order dated 06 April, 1995 passed in TP No. 41-55/1995 filed
by Direct Recruit Assistant Commandants, the recommendation of
said review DPC in respect of the petitioner and others could not
be given effect.
th
8. A DPC held on 11/13 June, 1986 considered the petitioner
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 3 of 41
for his promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant in BSF
treated him as general category candidate. He could not be
promoted. On it being realised that the petitioner falls in the
reserved category, his case was reviewed by Review DPC and he
was given notional promotion as Assistant Commandant with
st
effect from 01 April, 1987 i.e. from the date persons junior to him
were promoted. By order No.C-17011/2001/CC/Pers/BSF dated
th
24 March, 2005 the petitioner was given arrear of pay and
allowances for the said period. The amount of arrears was paid to
th
him vide Cheque No. 2486674 dated 19 May, 2005.
9. As the petitioner had been originally promoted as Assistant
st
Commandant with effect from 01 April, 1988, thus he could not
be considered for his promotion to the rank of Deputy
Commandant by the DPC held in 1992. However, on revision of
his seniority and antedating of date of his promotion as Assistant
st th
Commandant on 01 April, 1987, a review DPC was held on 24
November, 1992 and on the basis of the recommendation of said
DPC, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Commandant with
th
effect from 13 February, 1993. Since he was promoted as Deputy
th
Commandant on 13 February, 1993, he could not be promoted as
Second in Command in the year 1994, as he was not in the zone of
consideration for such promotion. As a result he was not promoted
as Commandant in the year 1996. The petitioner retired in the rank
th
of Deputy Commandant on 30 April, 1998 and is being paid
pension accordingly.
10. The petitioner had filed WP(C) No. 7631/2001 before this
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 4 of 41
Court seeking direction for his promotion to the rank of Inspector
st
with effect from 1 February, 1972, Assistant Commandant with
th
effect from 14 June, 1976, Deputy Commandant with effect from
th st
06 July, 1986, Second in Command with effect from 01 January,
th
1994 and Commandant with effect from 25 October, 1996 and for
re-fixation of his pension in the rank of Commandant. The said
th
writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19 December, 2005
with following directions:-
“It is not in dispute that the dispute involved in
this writ petition is covered by the judgment titled
as B.S. Naruka & Ors Vs. UOI CWP No.
1673/1992 rendered by Division Bench of this
Court. Accordingly the representation made by
the petitioner dated 18.04.1987 shall be
considered in accordance with the above
judgment. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by
the disposal of the representation it is open to him
to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.
The writ petition stand disposed of.”
11. Pursuant to the above judgment of the Hon‟ble Court, the
th
petitioner had submitted a representation dated 16 January, 2006
th
along with copy of the order dated 20 July, 2005 of this court case
regarding relief sought for antedated promotion and copy of his
th
representation dated 18 April, 1987.
12. As per the detailed order, the representation of the petitioner
was disposed of in the light of the decision of this Court in the case
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 5 of 41
of B.S.Naruka & Ors Vs. UOI in CPW No. 1673/1992 and it was
held that the seniority was correctly fixed as per old rules and he
earned subsequently promotion on that basis.
13. The petitioner had challenged the dismissal of his
representation titled as R.K. Nimoria, DC (Retd.) Vs. UOI & Ors in
Writ Petition No. 15159/2006 .
14. After discussing the brief history of the litigation, this court
in the said writ petition had summarised the contention of the
petitioner as under:-
“(i) His batch mates of 1968 were promoted
th
as Inspector with effect from 12 December,
1971, 1972, 1973 & 1974 while he was not so
promoted. In para 30 of his petition he mention
the names of S/Shri B.R. Yadav, D.S. Ahluwali,
P.C. Sharma, Hoshiyar Singh Dahiya, R.S. Nei,
S.S. Chahar & R.K. Singh, who according to him
were his batch mates and were promoted ahead of
him.
(ii) No common seniority list of Sub-
Inspector was maintained centrally at
Headquarters of BSF.
(iii) His service record was not placed before
DPC held to consider him for his promotion as
Assistant Commandant.”
15. In the said writ petition, the respondents had filed their
counter reply and had contended that the seniority list had been
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 6 of 41
maintained in terms of Rule 123 and 124 and had duly followed the
procedure for selection of Sub-Inspectors (Platoon Commandant)
for List „E‟ and promotion from Sub Inspector (Platoon
Commandant) to Inspector (Company 2 I/CS).
16. After discussing the Rules 123, 124 and 136, this court had
reached to the following conclusion in the said writ petition:-
“17. As can be seen from the order dated
19.12.2005, passed by a Division Bench of this
Court in WP(C) No. 7639/2001 which petition
was filed by the petitioner, it is not in dispute that
the issue raised by the petitioner, has to be
decided in light of the law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition
filed by B.S. Naruka and others.
18. Thus there is no substance in the
contention of the petitioner that the seniority of
Sub-Inspectors in BSF till July 1975 should not
have been maintained on State wise (Frontier
wise basis). Similarly there is no substance in his
contention that when his batch mates were
promoted against the vacancies in their own
Frontiers/States against the vacancies available
there, he should also have been automatically
promoted. The Controversy has already been set
at rest in the case of B.S. Naruka and others.
Petitioner himself agreed that his representation
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 7 of 41
dated 18.04.1987 should have been considered in
terms of judgment in the case of B.S. Naruka. The
respondents have passed order dated 05.05.2006.
We find no reason to take a view different from
what is already taken in the case of B.S. Naruka
on the issue of maintenance of Frontier/State wise
seniority and promotion of Sub-Inspectors from
such seniority against the vacancy available in the
Frontier. In para 9 of the Counter Reply, the
respondents have categorically stated that the
petitioner remained posted in Training Institution
from Oct 1970 to Oct 1975. In para 8 of the
Counter reply the respondents have stated that the
petitioner was not superseded by his juniors
posted in the Training Institution up to promotion
as Inspector from 12.12.1971 is not substantiated
and is not tenable. As is stated by respondents in
para 9 of the counter reply, S/Shri B.R. Yadav and
P.C. Sharma and Ors Sub-Inspectors who were
promoted as Inspector w.e.f 12.12.1971 were
posted in other Frontiers and got promotion
against the vacancies available in their
Frontiers/Sectors. As has been pronounced upon
in the case of B S. Naruka, the promotion of said
Sub-Inspectors against the vacancies available in
their Frontier does not give any right to petitioner
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 8 of 41
for automatic promotion, even when there was no
vacancy in his Frontier.
19. Since the claim of the petitioner for promotion
as Sub-Inspector from 12.12.1971 is not
substantiated, his claim for consequential
promotions as Deputy Commandant, 2IC, and
Commandant on the basis of claim for promotion
as Sub-Inspector from 12.12.1971 from
14.06.1976, 20.05.1986, 07.08.1994 &
23.10.1996 can also be not accepted. Since the
petitioner retired as Deputy Commandant, he is
entitled to pension as Deputy Commandant only
and not as Commandant.
x x x x x x x x x x x x
M oreover, in the writ petition filed in the year
2006, the challenge to use of certain words in the
orders passed on 16.12.1998 and 24.03.1999
would be barred by latches.
20. However, we are not dismissing the
present writ petition on latches alone, but in view
of the facts and circumstances noted hereinabove
particularly the fact that no person junior to the
petitioner in the training institution was promoted
above the petitioner and we reiterate by way of
conclusion that till the Rules of 1975 came into
force no integrated seniority list of Sub-Inspectors
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 9 of 41
was maintained. Lists were maintained
Frontier/State wise ... .... ....”
17. The petitioner, thereafter, presented a Review Petition
No. 223/2011 seeking review of the said order of this court. The
said review petition had been dismissed by this court vide order
th
dated 19 May, 2011. However, petitioner was allowed to make a
representation on limited grievance raised by him in his Review
Petition.
18. In view of the liberty given to petitioner to file a
representation, the petitioner had filed a representation and his
representation was disposed of by DIG BSF vide his detailed order
dated 11.10.2011. The petitioner has challenged the impugned
order dated 11.10.2011 before this court by the way of present writ
petition.
19. From the above, it is apparent that the above noted findings
of this court in various writ petitions have attained finality. These
issues stands finally decided between the parties and cannot be re-
agitated before this court for the simple reason that the earlier
findings of this court are binding. These findings include the
following:-
th
(i) From the order dated 19 December, 2005 in Civil Writ
Petition of 7639/2001, it is apparent that the findings in the case of
B.S. Naruka & Ors. Vs. UOI is binding on the parties. In B.S.
Naruka & Ors. Vs. UOI , this court has held that the said rules do
not contemplate automatic promotion. Merit and suitability of the
concerned officer would be the primary test but seniority has also
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 10 of 41
to be taken into consideration. In the B.S. Naruka case, this court
has also held that the seniority has to be determined on the basis of
continuous service of a person in the concerned Frontier/State.
The court has held as under:-
“Rules 123 and 124 provide for maintenance of
list of seniority of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors
as State-wise and Frontier-wise respectively.
Even for the said purpose some organizations
were to be treated as “State” and “Frontier”.
(ii) In WP(C) No. 15159/2006, the court has categorically
held that no person junior to the petitioner in the Frontier to which
the petitioner was attached to during the period 1971 to October
1975 has been promoted. During this period, petitioner was
attached to 103 Bn BSF, Hazaribagh (Bihar) at Training Centre and
School. Thus, it is clear that no person junior to the petitioner in
the Training Centre and School Hazari Bagh had superseded the
petitioner.
(iii) In review petition No.223/2011, the petitioner was
only permitted to agitate the issue as to why the persons junior to
him in his Frontier were recommended for promotion when his
name was not considered or recommended for promotion in DPC
held on 22-23 July, 1971 in New Delhi, 27 to 29 July, 1972 in New
th st
Delhi and on 30 and 31 January, 1974.
20. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
non recommendation of his name in the above said 3 DPC‟s, held
on 22-23 July, 1971 in New Delhi, 27 to 29 July, 1972 in New
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 11 of 41
th st
Delhi and on 30 and 31 January, 1974. His plea is that the
names of his juniors were recommended in those DPC‟s and the
grounds of challenge are that the said act of respondent is unjust,
arbitrary and unconstitutional and violates his fundamental rights
and that he was also vandalised and that he who belonged to
Scheduled Caste category, was not only superseded by his juniors
of same Frontier/State but also by General Category candidates
and that because similarly placed employees cannot be treated in
different manner and has prayed that he be considered and
promoted to the rank of Inspector w.e.f. 16.10.1971when his junior
batch mates of the year 1968 batch Sub- Inspectors were so
promoted without his knowledge and from the back of the
Petitioner and pass an order with regard to his future promotion to
respective posts on due date when similarly situated employees
were considered and promoted and to fix properly at each stage of
seniority in respective posts and grant all consequential benefits
th
and set aside the order dated 11 October, 2011 passed by the DIG,
BSF.
21. It is contended by the respondents that no doubt persons
junior to the petitioner in his Frontier were recommended by DIG
in exercise of his powers in Section 136, however, the DPC find
them unfit and they were not considered for promotion and in both
the DPCs held on July and January, 1972, persons senior to the
petitioner were promoted. As regards, the DPC held on January
30-31, 1974, it is submitted that according to HQ DG BSF, New
Delhi letter No. 17 (1)73-ORG/BSF dated 24 Nov 1973 and Signal
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 12 of 41
No. R-3252 dated 05 Nov 1973, Sub-Inspectors of Training
Institutions and HQrs Reserve Battalions having seniority only up
to 30.04.1968 were considered by DPC for List „E‟ Test held in
New Delhi and Petitioner had joined on 17.5.1968 so not eligible.
22. It is further submitted that SI Prakash Chand Sharma, who
th
was appointed as SI (DE) on 18 May, 1968 and was junior to the
petitioner, was not falling within the cut-off date of seniority fixed
for List „E‟test. Hence, he was not eligible for consideration by the
DPC and was not allowed to appear in the DPC List „E‟ test held
on 30 & 31 January 1974 and was not also given any marks by the
DPC. In fact, his case was not considered by the DPC being
ineligible even though his name was merely recorded in the DPC
proceedings. It is submitted mere recording of name does not in
any way amount to supersession of the petitioner in promotion to
the rank of Inspector.
23. It is further contended that the promotion is not a matter of
right. It is further contended that as per Rule 119, the names of
suitable candidates were required to be sent by Commandant and
that the petitioner was not found suitable by his Commandant and
his name was not sent for DPC List E since he had also not passed
the pre-promotion test. It is argued that the petitioner has racked
up this issue after almost 40 years that his name was not
recommended by his Commandants although names of his juniors
were recommended to DPCs held on 22-23 July, 1971 in New
th st
Delhi, 27 to 29 July, 1972 in New Delhi and on 30 and 31
January, 1974 and that he had not alleged any bias at any time prior
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 13 of 41
th
to his raising these issues in his review petition dated 28 March,
2011.
24. It is further argued that petitioner had not felt any bias or
violation of his fundamental rights at the relevant time that is why
he had not raised this issue at any stage even in his earlier writ
petitions and therefore his contentions had no merit in it. His rights
of promotion were not affected by not sending his name for the
said three DPCs since no person junior to him in his Frontier was
promoted in those DPCs and there was no deprivation of his right
to promotion.
25. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the petitioner has
claimed his promotion to the rank of Inspector from three different
dates in three writ petitions filed by him. In writ petition
st
7639/2001, he has claimed his promotion w.e.f 1 February, 1972.
In the second writ petition 15159/2006 he has claimed his
th
promotion w.e.f 12 December, 1971 and in this writ petition, he
th
has claimed his promotion w.e.f. 16 October, 1971. It is argued
that this very fact clearly shows that the petitioner is misusing the
process of law.
26. We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions
of the parties and the arguments forwarded by their learned
counsels.
27. It is a fact that even after the failure of the petitioner to get
an order in his favour that he was entitled to promotion to the rank
of Inspector w.e.f 12.12.1971 in his writ petition No. 15159/2006
he has racked up this issue afresh in the present writ petition
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 14 of 41
wherein he has made following prayer :-
“a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider and promote the petitioner to the rank of Inspector w.e.f.
th
16 October, 1971 when his junior batch mates of the year 1968
batch Sub- Inspectors were so promoted without his knowledge
and from the back of the Petitioner and pass an order with regard to
his future promotion to respective posts on due date when similarly
situated employees were considered and promoted and to fix
properly at each stage of seniority in respective posts and grant all
consequential benefits.”
28. By the order of this court dated 19.05.2011 while disposing
of his review petition no. 223/2011, the petitioner was confined
only to limited issues. This court issued the following directions:-
“1.After some arguments learned counsel for the
petitioner concedes that the issue projected in the
application seeking review are not the ones which
were pleaded in the pleadings constituting the
writ petition and thus learned counsel seeks leave
to withdraw the application seeking review,
stating that the petitioner intends to file a
representation before the department for
appropriate orders.
2. Facts to be noted are that the petitioner has a
grievance of his not being promoted as an
Inspector when his entitlement enured and claims
that persons junior to him were promoted. This
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 15 of 41
has affected the further promotional rights of the
petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner.
3. It is not in dispute that prior to the year 1975,
promotions were effected frontier wise and there
were no centralized promotions.
4. In other words, persons who joined BSF in the
same year and on the same post, depending upon
the Frontier to which they were assigned, earned
promotions on different dates.
5. As regards the petitioner, we note that this is
the second round of litigation. The first round of
litigation came to an end when order dated
19.12.2005 was passed disposing of WP (C) No.
7631/2001 filed by the petitioner in which it was
directed that the petitioner would make a details
representation which would be decided by a
speaking order.
6. Petitioner made a representation on
16.01.2006 which was disposed of vide order
dated 05.05.2006. It is said order which was
questioned in the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes
that in the representation dated 16.01.2006 issues
now being sought to be projected by way of
review were not raised.
8. We note that the issue which the petitioner is
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 16 of 41
now seeking to urge pertains to SI Rattan Singh
Raghwa, SI Laxman Singh Mehta and SI Balbir
Singh being considered in the year 1971.
Petitioner claims that these 3 persons were junior
to him. Conceding that the 3 did not earn a
promotion, grievance raised as to why was
petitioner not considered in the DPC, which met
rd
on 23 July, 1971.
9. Similarly, petitioner raised a grievance with
th th
respect to the DPC which met on 27 , 28 and
th
29 July 1972. Petitioner states that SI Om
Prakash Arya, Si Y.P. Singh, SI Hoshiar Singh
Dahiya and SI Ram Singh, all junior to the
petitioner were considered. Conceding that they
were not promoted, grievance raised is of
petitioner‟s name not even being considered.
10. Further grievance is to the DPC which
met in the year 1974 where in one SI Prakash
Chand Sharma, stated to be junior to the
petitioner was considered for promotion. Though
not promoted, grievance raised is that petitioner‟s
case was not even considered.
12. Under the circumstances we permit
learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the
application seeking review and reserve the right
for the petitioner to file a representation within 6
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 17 of 41
weeks from today but limited to the aforenoted
grievance of the petitioner. No other grievance
would be permitted to be raised in the
representation and needless to state the
representation shall be decided with a reasoned
order within 12 WP (C) 15159/2006.
Weeks of receipt of the representation.
x x x x x x x x x x x x
15. Be that as it may it would be for the
department to look into the grievance which
petitioner has been permitted by us to be raised in
the representation which he would be filing. The
respondent would be entitled to consider its
records while deciding the same.
16. If petitioner is aggrieved by the order
passed he shall have remedies as per law, but
only on the limited issue.”
29. The petitioner, however, in the present writ petition, has
again racked up the issue that persons junior to him were promoted
when he contended that he was denied right of his promotion
despite being eligible and competent for promotion which has been
provided to his batch mates and even Juniors comprising the same
State/Frontier. He has named few as under:-
Name Unit Date of Apptt Date of Retired as
Promotion
(As Inspt.)
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 18 of 41
SI Rajender Singh 100 Bn 6.4.1968 16.10.1971 Comdt-
Temporary, Not
confirmed not
pre-promotion
qualified.
SI Rattan Singh 100Bn 21.5.1968 15.10.1971 Comdt-do-
Raghav
SI DS Ahluwalia 100Bn 21.5.1968 15.10.1971 DIG –do-
SI BR Yadav 58Bn 18.5.1968 12.12.1971 Comdt –do-
SI OC Dogra 54Bn 7.7.1969 1.5.1973 DIG –do-
R.K. Nimoria TC 17.5.1968 6.3.1978 Asstt. Comdt-
(Petitioner)
Confirmed on 1.1.1971,
Pre-Promotion qualified
Graduate, SC Category
30. In the Counter Affidavit, the respondents have stated that the
persons enumerated by the petitioner in his writ petition belonged
to different State/ Frontier.
Parawise reply given by the respondent is as under:-
S.No. Contention of the
Petitioner.
Factual Position
1 SI Rajinder Singh, 100
Bn
Date of apptt as SI
06.04.68
Date of Promotion
16.10.71 as Inspector
Retired as Comdt
He was not junior to the
petitioner as he was holding the
rank of Sub-Inspector w.e.f.
06.04.68. He was promoted to
the rank of Inspector w.e.f
17.12.1971 while he remained
posted in North-Western
frontier. Based on his
promotion as Inspector, he
earned subsequent promotions
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 19 of 41
on his own merit and suitability
and retired as Second-in-
command (21C) w.e.f. 30-11-
2001 his date of birth being 16-
11-1944
2 SI Rattan Singh Raghav,
100 Bn
Date of apptt as SI
21.05.68
Date of Promotion
15.10.71 as Inspector
Retired as Comdt
He was considered by the DPC
held in North-western frontier
on 10 to 12 May 1972 and was
promoted to the rank of
Inspector wef 15.10.72 against
the vacancy of that frontier.
3 SI DS Ahluwalia, 100 Bn
Date of apptt as SI
21.05.68
Date of promotion
15.10.71 as Inspector
Retired as DIG
He was considered by the DPC
held in North-Western Frontier
on 10 to 12 May 1972 and was
promoted to the rank of
Inspector wef 01.12.72 against
the vacancy of that Frontier.
Based on his promotion as
Inspector, he earned subsequent
promotions on his own merit
and suitability and retired as
DIG/CLO wef 31-10-2008
being his date of birth 20-10-
1948
4 SI BR Yadav, 58 Bn
Date of apptt as SI
18.05.68
Date of Promotion
12.12.71 as Inspector
Retired as Comdt
He was considered by the DPC
held in North-Western Frontier
on 28 to 30 June 1971 and was
promoted to the rank of
Inspector we.f. 12.12.71 against
the vacancy of that frontier.
Based on his promotion as
Inspector, he earned subsequent
promotions on his own merit
and suitability and retired as
Commandant wef 30-04-2004
being his date of birth 04-04-
1947
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 20 of 41
5 SI OC Dogra, 54 BN
Date of apptt as SI
07.07.69
Date of Promotion
01.05.73 as Inspector
Retired as DIG
He was considered by the DPC
held in North-western Frontier
on 28 to 30 June 1971 and was
promoted to the rank of
Inspector wef 12.12.71 against
the vacancy of that Frontier.
Based on his promotion as
Inspector, he earned subsequent
promotions on his own merit
and suitability and retired as
DIG. Wef 30-06-2010 being his
date of birth 01-07-1950
6 R K Nimoria, (Petitoner)
TC&S/103 Bn BSF
Date of apptt as SI
17.05.68
Date of Promotion 06-
03-78 as Inspector
Retired as Dy. Comdt.
The petitioner remained posted
in 103 Bn BSF (HQrs Reserve
Battalion) under Training
Centre & School, Hazaribagh
with effect from 09-10-1970 to
18-10-1975. During the period
from 09-10-1970 to 1807-1975,
his frontier for the purpose of
conducting his List „E‟test was
as referred in the Explanation to
Rule 124 of the Central Reserve
police Force (Fourteenth
Amendment) Rules, 1967
according to Rule 136(2) of said
th
Rules up to 18 July 1975 and
during the period from 19-07-
1975 to 18-10-1975, his sector
for the purpose of conducting
his List „E‟test was as referred
in the Proviso to Rule 8 of the
BSF (Subordinate Officers and
Under Officers) Promotion and
Seniority Rules, 1975,
according to Proviso to Rule
18(3) of said Rules. In exercise
of the powers vested in him
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 21 of 41
under Rule 136(1) of the
Central Reserve Police Force
(Fourteenth Amendment) Rules,
1967, the Commandant 103 Bn
BSF/TC&S BSF Hazaribagh
had not found the petitioner
suitable for promotion to the
rank of Inspector due to
inadequate confidential record
of service and also no
qualifying Junior Leader Course
as mandated in Rule 119 read
with Rule 128 of said Rules.
Hence, the Commandant 103
Bn BSF/TC&S BSF Hazaribagh
had not submitted
nomination/recommendation of
the petitioner for promotion to
the rank of Inspector and
accordingly, his case was not
considered by the DPC List E
met in 1971 and 1972 in New
Delhi. Further, the petitioner
had not come under the zone of
consideration prescribed for
DPC List E met in 1974 in New
Delhi and as such, was not
considered by the DPC. The
petitioner was graded as „Unfit
by the subsequent DPC List E
which met in 1975 recording
remarks “ Fails in records and
aggregate even after
relaxations as Schedule Caste’.
The Petitioner was graded as
„fit‟ by the next DPC
empanelled and promoted to the
rank of Inspector with effect
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 22 of 41
from 06.03.1978 and his date of
promotion as Subedar
(Inspector) is correct as per the
record. Based on his promotion
as Inspector, he earned
subsequent promotions on his
own merit and suitability and
retired as Deputy Commandant
w.e.f. 30-04-1998 being his date
of birth 06-04-1943.
Thus, the contention of the petitioner that juniors from his
Frontier/State were promoted is baseless.
31. In case B.S. Naruka & Ors. Vs. UOI , this court while
deciding the issue of seniority held that:
“50. Interpretation of statutory rules would
depend upon the text and context thereof. For the
afore-mentioned purpose the entire rules are to be
read in their entirety and then Chapter by
Chapter and then provision by provision. The said
rules do not contemplated automatic promotion.
Merit and suitability of the concerned officer
would be the primary test but seniority has also to
be taken into consideration.
52. It is also beyond any cavil of doubt that
whereas Sub-Inspectors are under the control of
the Deputy Inspector-Generals, the Inspectors are
under the control of the Inspector-Generals. Rules
123 and 124 provide for maintenance of list of
seniority of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors as
State-wise and Frontier-wise respectively. Even
for the said purpose some organizations were to
be treated as "State" and "Frontier". It is also not
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 23 of 41
in dispute that undergoing the pre-promotion
Course as specified in Rule 128 is mandatory for
promotion. It may be that an employee has
wrongly been denied entry in such Courses but
Therefore an appropriate order could be passed,
but that by itself, in our considered opinion,
cannot be a ground for holding that all the Sub-
Inspectors and Inspectors irrespective of their
position and date of promotion and irrespective of
the fact that as to whether they had undergone the
requisite training for promotion would be entitled
to promotion as a matter of right. The answer to
the said question must be rendered in the
negative.
53. The rules do not say that automatic promotion
would be granted upon completion of three years.
Grant of promotion would not only depend upon
the existence of vacancy but also on the intention
of the Central Government to fill up the same.
54. No employee has a right to obtain a writ of or
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to promote him to a rank irrespective
of the fact as to whether he may be found suitable
on merit therefore or not.
55. At several stages of promotion not only the
vacancy position is required to be considered but
also the merit of the respective candidates are
also required to be considered.”
In this case, this court has held that as per the rules, the
seniority list for promotion is to be maintained State/ Frontier wise
under BSF Rules 1969.
32. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that persons junior
to him were promoted, falls to the ground in view of the fact that
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 24 of 41
these persons are not from his Frontier/State but belong to North-
Western Frontier and because it is now a settled law that up to the
year 1975 when the BSF Rules were amended, the seniority of the
Sub-Inspectors and other ranks were to be maintained as per their
seniority in their Frontier/State.
33. The grievance of the petitioner is also that although names of
his juniors in his State/Frontier were sent for consideration and
promotion to three DPC‟s, his name was not sent and that his rights
were violated. It is also argued by the petitioner that it is
immaterial that the recommended names of his juniors were
rejected by DPCs.
It is argued by learned counsel for respondent that no right of
the petitioner was violated since no person junior to him was
promoted and that contention of the petitioner is highly belated.
34. The Border Security Force (BSF) was constituted after war
of 1965, in terms of the provision of Central Reserve Police Force
Rules (CRPF) 1955 by the Central Government in exercise of its
power conferred u/s 18 of CRPF Act 1949. Rule 117 of these
Rules provides that except Rule 55 to Rule 71 (both inclusive),
Rule 75, Rule 76 and Chapter XV, thereof all the other rules of
CRPF 1955 were applicable to BSF constituting subordinate
officers. Rule 119 (2) specify the competent authorities in respect
of members of the BSF thereof:-
1. 2.
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 25 of 41
Constables and under officers Sub-
Commandant Deputy
Inspectors
Inspector General
(Platoon Commanders) Inspectors
Inspector General.
(Company 21/c)
35. Rule 118 prescribes that the promotion in all ranks shall be
based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to
seniority.
36. Rule 136 prescribes the procedure for selecting Sub-
Inspector (Pl. Comdr.) for List „E‟and promotion from SI to Inspr.
Coy 2 I/C which reads as under:-
“136. Procedure of selecting Sub-lnspr (PI, Comdr.)
for List 'E' and promotion from SI to Inspr. (Coy 2
I/C).
(1) Once every year the Comdt. Shall recommend to
the IG through DIG concerned such Sis (P1.
Comdrs) whom he considered suitable for
promotion to the rank of fnsprs. (Coy 2 I/C).
(2) The IG of the frontier shall constitute a Board
consisting of himself and all DIGs under him and
two Comdts. of Bns: Provided that in respect of
the frontier referred to in the explanation to Rule
124, the Board shall consist of the DG BSF, the
Comds. of the BSF Academy Tekanpur, BSF Trg.
School H/bagh. CSWT BSF Indore and two
Comdts of the BN in the HQrs. reserve and when
the DG BSF is unable to preside over the Board
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 26 of 41
he shall nominate an officer not below the rank of
DIG to preside.
(3) The Board shall consider the record of service of
the nominees, their performance in the courses
and seniority, and test then on parade and
interview them.
(4) The Board shall prepare a list of names of officers
found fit for inclusion in list 'E'.
(5) THE NAMES WILL BE ARRANGED IN THE
ORDER OF SENIORITY (emphasis is ours).
Provided that in case where the Board considers
the performance, merit and record of service of an
officer of outstanding merit, the board may place
his name above his seniors.
(6) A gradation list of Sis (PI Comdrs.) approved for
inclusion in list 'E' shall be maintained at the
HQrs. of the BSF."
37. Under the Rules, it was for the Commandant of the
petitioner to recommend his names to IG through DIG concerned.
The Commandant was to send the names of those persons whom he
considered suitable for promotion to the rank of Inspectors. In the
case of the petitioner, his then Commandant did not found the
petitioner suitable for promotion to the rank of Inspector and that is
why his name was not recommended to the IG through DIG for
promotion for relevant various DPCs. The DPC could consider the
name of petitioner, only when it was recommended by his then
Commandant.
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 27 of 41
38. The petitioner has not alleged any bias against his
Commandants in the last 40 years. Even in his present petition he
has not contended any bias against his Commandants manning that
post at the time of relevant DPCs.
39. The petitioner therefore has not at any stage during his
service or thereafter questioned non recommendation of his name
by his Commandants for 3 DPCs held during 1971-1974. It was
only after his superannuation that he had for the first time while
filing his petition in 2001 has claimed his promotion to the rank of
Inspector w.e.f 1.12.1972.
40. It is also a cardinal principle of law that if any act has been
challenged on the ground of bias or on the ground that his rights
had been vandalized, the party is required to place on record the
facts and the contentions which lead to such bias. The petitioner
has not contended any element of bias against his various
Commandants who were the authority to recommend his name for
the DPC‟s held between 1971 to 1974.
41. Moreover, the petitioner has also failed to show that he had
suffered any prejudice or any of his right had been violated by the
act of the respondents. No junior to the petitioner had been
promoted to the rank of Inspector in these three DPC‟s. In these
three DPC‟s, the persons promoted as Inspectors were all senior to
the petitioner.
42. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that
even for the sake of argument, if we were to suppose that the name
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 28 of 41
of the petitioner would have been recommended in those DPC‟s,
even then he would not have been promoted because the persons
promoted in these DPC‟s were senior to the petitioner and his fate
would have been the same as of others and thus no prejudice has
been caused to the petitioner.
43. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has defined the term „bias‟in
the case of State of Gujarat and Nar. Vs. Hon‟ble Mr. Justice R.A.
Mehta (Retd.) and Ors. reported in Civil Appeal Nos. 8814-8815
of 2012 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2625-2626 and 2687-2688 of 2012 as
under:-
“The apprehension of bias must be reasonable,
i.e., which a reasonable person would be likely to
entertain. Bias is one of the limbs of natural
justice. The doctrine of bias emerges from the
legal maxim - nemo debet esse judex in causa
propria sua. It applies only when the interest
attributed to an individual is such, so as to tempt
him to make a decision in favour of, or to further,
his own cause.
While deciding upon such an issue, the court must
examine the facts and circumstances of the case,
and examine the matter from the view point of the
people at large.”
44. Again, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case titled as
Chandra Kumar Chopra Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. cited
in Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2002 after taking into consideration
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 29 of 41
the l aw laid down in various authorities including Manak Lal Vs.
Dr. Prem Chand MANU/SC/0001/1957, AIR 1957 SC 425,
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Ors. Vs. Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation and ANr. (1959) Supp. 1 SCR. 319,
A.K. Kraipak and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors.
MANU/SC/0427/1969, AIR 1970 SC 150, Dr. S.P. Kapoor Vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/0715/1981: 4 SCC 716,
Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0691/1987 :
(1987) 4 SCC 611, M/s Crawford Bayley and Company and Ors.
Vs. Union of India and Ors. MANU/ SC/2985/2006: AIR 2006 SC
2544, S. Parthasarathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
MANU/SC/0059/1973: (1974) 3 SCC 459 and Metropolitan
Properties Company (F.G.C.) Ltd. Vs. Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577,
599 has summarised as under:-
“22. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it
is discernible that mere suspicion or
apprehension is not good enough to entertain a
plea of bias. It cannot be a facet of one‟s
imagination. It must be in accord with the
prudence of a reasonable man. The
circumstances brought on record would show that
it can create an impression in the mind of a
reasonable mane that there is real likelihood of
bias. It is not to be forgotten that in a democratic
polity, justice in its conceptual eventuality and
inherent qunitessentiality forms the bedrock of
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 30 of 41
good governance. In a democratic system that is
governed by Rule of Law, fairness of action
propriety, reasonability, institutional
impeccability and non-biased justice delivery
system constitute the pillars on which its survival
remains in continuum.”
45. It has also been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the
case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh and Ors. etc
Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. etc reported in AIR 2012
SC 364 that the plea of bias should be taken at the earliest. The
Hon‟ble Court has observed as under:-
“21. In Manak Lal (Supra), this Court held that
alleged bias of a Judge/official/ Tribunal does not
render the proceedings invalid if it is shown that
the objection in that regard and particularly
against the presence of the said official in
question, had not been taken by the party even
though the party knew about the circumstances
giving rise to the allegations about the alleged
bias and was aware of its right to challenge the
presence of such official. The Court further
observed that waiver cannot always and in every
case be inferred merely from the failure of the
party to take the objection. “Waiver can be
inferred only if and after it is shown that the party
knew about the relevant facts and was aware of
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 31 of 41
his right to take the objection in question.
Thus, in a given case if a party knows the material
facts and is conscious of his legal rights in that
matter, but fails to take the plea of bias at the
earlier stage of the proceedings, it creates an
effective bar of waiver against him. In such facts
and circumstances, it would be clear that the
party wanted to take a chance to secure a
favourable order from the official/court and when
he found that he was confronted with an
unfavourable order, he adopted the device of
raising the issue of bias. The issue of bias must
be raised by the party at the earliest.”
46. It is apparent that the petitioner was all the time aware that
his name has not been sent to DPCs held during 1971-74 but he did
not raise any objection in his representations or earlier writ
petitions. He has raised the contention of bias etc for the first time
th
in his review Petition No. 223/2011 dated 28 March, 2011 i.e.
after almost 40 years of the incident. No reasonable explanation is
forthcoming from petitioner. The objection of the petitioner
premised on bias on the part of the authorities appears to be a
desperate attempt of the petitioner to obtain a relief which had been
denied to him in his earlier litigation. The petitioner has failed to
convince us that he had suffered any prejudice or any of his
substantive right has been taken away from him or that he was
vandalised or that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 32 of 41
Constitution of India.
47. The petitioner has failed to prove the facts and circumstances
to show the element of bias against him. It is clear that no person
junior to the petitioner in his frontier/State had superseded him and
his right of promotion as per his seniority in his frontier/State was
not adversely effected.
48. Even otherwise, it would be improper to ask the respondents
to consider the name of the petitioner at this stage when more than
40 years have been passed and much water has flown since then.
The petitioner had retired on superannuation in the year 1998. All
his colleagues and seniors in his frontier including the then
Commandants and DIG‟s etc and the persons promoted in these
DPC‟s also must have retired by now and the hands of the clock
cannot be turned back to 40 years after the event. Even otherwise
it would be a futile exercise as he being junior to the persons
promoted in these DPC‟s had his name being sent because in all
these DPC‟s only the persons senior in his Frontier/State were
promoted. The career prospects of the petitioner had not been
adversely effected at any stage by the act of the respondent.
49. There is another angle to this case also. The present petition
is barred under order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC).
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its judgment titled as Kunjan
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 33 of 41
Nair Sivaraman Nair Vs. Narayanan Nair and Ors. reported in
Civil Appeal No. 838 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
7653/2002) has discussed the provision of order 2 CPC as under.
“A mere look at the provisions shows that once the
plaintiff comes to a court of law for getting any
redress basing his cause of action, he must
include in his suit the whole claim pertaining to
that cause of action. But if he gives up a part of
the claim based on the said cause of action or
omits to sue in connection with the same, then he
cannot subsequently resurrect the said claim
based on the same cause of action. So far as Sub-
rule (3) is concerned, before the second suit of the
plaintiff can be held to be barred by the same, it
must be shown that the second suit is based on the
same cause of action on which the earlier suit was
based and if the cause of action-is the same in
both the suits and if in the earlier suit plaintiff had
not sued for any of the reliefs which it had failed
to press into service in that suit cannot be
subsequently prayed for except with the leave of
the court. It must, therefore, be shown by the
defendants for supporting their plea of bar of
Order II, Rule 2, Sub-rule (3) that the second suit
of the plaintiff filed is based on the same cause of
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 34 of 41
action on which its earlier suit was based and that
because it had not prayed for any relief and it had
not obtained leave of the court in that connection,
it cannot sue for that relief in the present second
suit.”
The expression “cause of action‟ has acquired a
judicially-settled meaning. In the restricted sense
cause of action means the „circumstances forming
the infraction of the right or the immediate
occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it
means the necessary conditions for the
maintenance of the suit, including not only the
infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled
with the right itself. Compendiously the
expression means every fact which it would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, it traversed, in
order to support his right to the judgment of the
Court. Every fact which is necessary to be
proved, as distinguished front every piece of
evidence which is necessary to prove each fact,
comprises in cause of action.”
50. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has again discussed the scope
th
of Order II Rule 2(2) and (3) in its recent judgment decided on 7
September, 2012 in Virgo Industries (Engl. ) P. Ltd. v. Vetruetech
Solutions P. Ltd and held that:-.
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 35 of 41
“The object behind enactment of Order II Rule 2(2)
and 3(3) of the Cod of Civil Procedure is not far
to seek. The Rule engrafts a laudable principle
that discourages/Prohibits vexing the Defendant
again and again by multiple suits except in a
situation where one of the several reliefs, though
available to a Plaintiff, may not have been
claimed for a good reason. A later suit for such
relief is contemplated only with the leave of the
Court which leave, naturally, will be granted
upon due satisfaction and for good and sufficient
reasons. The situations where the bar under
Order II Rule 2(2) and 3(3) will be attracted have
been enumerated in a long line of decisions
spread over a century now. Though each of the
aforesaid decisions contains a clear and precise
narration of the principles of law arrived at after
a detailed analysis, the principles laid down in the
judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal”.
51 . Discussing the object behind the enactment of Order II Rule
2(2) and (3) of the CPC has held as under:-
“The cardinal requirement for application of the
provisions contained in Order II Rule 2 (2) and (3),
therefore, is that the cause of action in the later suit
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 36 of 41
must be the same as in the first suit. It would be
wholly unnecessary to enter into any discourse on the
true meaning of the said expression ie.. cause of
action, particularly, in view of the clear enunciation
in a recent judgment of this Court”
“Cause of Action” has been defined as meaning
simply a factual situation existence of which entitles
one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against
another person. The phrase has been held from
earliest time to include every fact which is material to
be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to succeed, and every
fact which a Defendant would have a right to
traverse. „Cause of action‟ has also been taken to
mean that particular action the part of the Defendant
which gives the Plaintiff his cause of complaint, or
the subject-matter of grievance founding the action,
not merely the technical cause of action.”
52. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioner has claimed
his promotion to the post of Inspector antedated to his actual date
of promotion to the post of Subedar i.e 06.03.1978. In the first
Writ Petition No. 7639/2001 of the petitioner, he has claimed his
promotion to the rank of Subedar w.e.f. 01.02.1971. Since his
representation was pending before the authorities, the court had
issued the direction to the authorities to dispose of the said
representation. In his second writ petition no. 15159/2006, the
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 37 of 41
petitioner has claimed his promotion to the rank of Subedar w.e.f.
12.12.1971. In this writ petition again, the petitioner has claimed
that promotion should be antedated that is he should be promoted
to the rank of Subedar w.e.f. 16.10.1971 then his actual date of
promotion. All the three writ petitions were and are therefore for
the same cause of action, that is, “antedating the petitioner‟s
promotion to the post of Subedar”. In the first writ petition no.
7639/2001, the issue was not decided on merit as matter was
referred to the authorities with direction to dispose of the
representation of petitioner. In the second writ petition no.
15159/2006 of the petitioner, this court has determined the rights of
the petitioner and is clearly held:-
“ 18. Thus there is no substance in the contention of
the petitioner that the seniority of Sub-Inspectors in
BSF till July 1975 should not have been maintained
on State wise (Frontier wise basis). Similarly there is
no substance in his contention that when his batch
mates were promoted against the vacancies in their
own Frontiers/States against the vacancies available
there, he should also have been automatically
promoted.
x x x x x x x x x x x x
We find no reason to take a view different from what
is already taken in the case of B.S. Naruka on the
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 38 of 41
issue of maintenance of Frontier/State wise seniority
and promotion of Sub-Inspectors from such seniority
against the vacancy available in the Frontier. In
para 9 of the Counter Reply, the respondents have
categorically stated that the petitioner remained
posted in Training Institution from Oct 1970 to Oct
1975.
x x x x x x x x x x x x
As has been pronounced upon in the case of B S.
Naruka, the promotion of said Sub-Inspectors against
the vacancies available in their Frontier does not give
any right to petitioner for automatic promotion, even
when there was no vacancy in his Frontier.
20. However, we are not dismissing the present
writ petition on latches alone, but in view of the
facts and circumstances noted hereinabove
particularly the fact that no person junior to the
petitioner in the training institution was promoted
above the petitioner and we reiterate by way of
conclusion that till the Rules of 1975 came into
force no integrated seniority list of Sub-Inspectors
was maintained.”
53. Thus, court has given clear findings that the petitioner was not
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 39 of 41
entitled for his promotion to the post of Inspector prior to the actual
date of promotion. This issue therefore stands finally determined.
All the pleas challenging his promotion to the post of Inspector from
any other date then the actual date of his promotion ought to have
been taken up by the petitioner in his previous writ petitions.
Order I Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that
every suit shall be framed so as to afford the grounds for final
decision upon the said end to prevent further litigation concerning
them. Again Order II Rule 2 states that it is required that every suit
shall include the element of the claim of the plaintiff which he is
entitled to in respect of cause of action.
54. When we apply these principles to the facts of the present
case, it is apparent that, as discussed above, in the earlier writ
petitions, the petitioner had claimed his promotion to the post of
Subedar at an earlier date then his actual promotion which had
taken place on 06.03.1978. The Division Bench of this Court in his
writ petition No. 15159/2006 has clearly held that the policy of
maintaining the seniority State/Frontier wise was correct and was
as per the rules applicable to the petitioner and that the petitioner
had no right to automatic promotion in the absence of any vacancy
in his frontier/State and that he had been rightly promoted and that
he was not entitled to the promotion antedated.
55. As per the principles laid down in Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, the petitioner cannot re-agitate the same issue which was the
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 40 of 41
subject matter of his earlier writ petitions and wherein that issue
which was between the same parties and on the same cause of action
(not being promoted in three DPC‟s), cannot be permitted to be re-
agitated by way of fresh writ petition on different plea, approach to
the issue, especially after a lapse of 40 years.
56. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this writ
petition. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DEEPA SHARMA)
JUDGE
(GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE
September 24 , 2013
Sapna
WP(C)No. 550/2012 Page 41 of 41