2025:UHC:4430-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 171 of 2016 03 June, 2025 Nandan Singh Bisht --Petitioner Versus Union of India & others. --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “A. To Issue a writ or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the communication dated 18.02.2016 (Annexure no. 4). B. To Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent to consider the candidature the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Commandant (Engineer).” 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Sub Inspector (Overseer) in Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) on 22.12.1979. Subsequently, he was 1 2025:UHC:4430-DB promoted as Inspector (Overseer) in September, 1986; he was thereafter promoted as Assistant Commandant (Engineer) on 09.04.2001, and petitioner was again promoted as Deputy Commandant on 13.05.2008. The next promotional post available to petitioner is that of Commandant. 3. Since petitioner was not meeting the eligibility requirement for promotion to the post of Commandant, therefore, he made a representation to the competent authority in ITBP seeking relaxation in residency period for promotion to the post of Commandant (Engineer). The Directorate General, ITBP issued an Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2016, whereby petitioner was informed that his case for relaxation in residency period by one month and twelve days was put up before the Ministry of Home Affairs, however, Ministry has not agreed for grant of relaxation stating that since a protection has been provided under recruitment Rules to those officers in the feeder grade on the date of notification of revised recruitment Rules, therefore, grant of further relaxation would not be in order. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. Sanjeev Raina, Deputy Inspector General, ITBP. Paragraph no. 9 of the said counter affidavit is extracted 2 2025:UHC:4430-DB below:- “Averments as stated in the petition are denied. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 11 of Writ Petition, it is submitted here that the case of the petitioner for relaxation in 15 years Group "A" service by one month & 12 days was taken up with MHA. However, the Ministry after consultation with DoP&T, not agreed for the same because protection (Relaxation from 10 years regular service) was already provided to the petitioner in the RRs because of his holding the post of DC (Engr.) on regular basis on the date of notification of revised RRs i.e. 21.6.2012. Since petitioner was to be considered for promotion under the already relaxed condition provided in the RRs, therefore, the ministry did not found it proper to further relax the eligibility condition in his case and hence, rejected his case. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the competent authority in Ministry to relax the condition of eligibility and the same cannot be claimed as a Right.” 5. Since petitioner did not meet the eligibility conditions for promotion to the post of Commandant (Engineer), he sought relaxation in the condition of eligibility of residency period. Respondent has decided not to grant him relaxation for valid reasons. 6. Law is well settled that relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and every person has to be eligible as per the recruitment Rules. Admittedly, petitioner was not eligible as per the recruitment Rules, therefore, we do not find any scope for interference in the matter. 3 2025:UHC:4430-DB 7. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of filing of the writ petition, petitioner was 57 years of age, the writ petition was filed in 2016, therefore, he must have retired in 2019. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any scope for interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.06.2025 Navin 4 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82 a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF5 6D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.06.05 10:52:21 +05'30'