The Delhi High Court has held that an Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) officer’s service as Assistant Commandant (General Duty) from July 10, 1995, must be counted for determining his seniority in the Judge Attorney General (JAG) cadre, ruling that the two posts are analogous in nature.
A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Digpaul and C. Hari Shankar directed the authorities to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for 2002 to assess the officer’s suitability for promotion to Deputy Judge Attorney General/Deputy Commandant (Dy. JAG/DC). The Court held that his seniority in the post of Judge Attorney/Assistant Commandant (JA/AC) should be computed from July 10, 1995, making him eligible to be considered for promotion from 2002 onwards.
The officer had challenged the November 3, 2009 order promoting him to Dy. JAG/DC with immediate effect, seeking seniority in the post from 2002. He contended that his earlier service as Assistant Commandant (General Duty) in the ITBP was in an analogous post and should count towards his seniority and eligibility for promotion after his absorption into the JAG cadre.
Accepting this contention, the Court considered the posts’ pay scales, classification and applicable service rules, and concluded that the two posts were analogous. It clarified, however, that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, not an automatic right to promotion.
The Court directed that a review DPC be convened for 2002 to assess the officer’s suitability for promotion to Dy. JAG/DC. If found suitable, the November 3, 2009 promotion order would stand quashed and set aside. In that event, another review DPC must be convened for 2009 to assess his suitability for promotion to Additional Judge Attorney General/Commandant (Addl. JAG/Com), with the authorities directed to consider relaxation of the requisite eligibility criteria to the extent permissible under existing guidelines.
The Court clarified that any promotions and consequential benefits granted pursuant to these directions would be notional.