2025:JHHC:24368 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3745 of 2025 ---- Daya Ram Paswan, Son of Late Thither Paswan, Correspondence Address- CISF No. 941530093 Ct. GD, CISF Unit 2nd RB, Ranchi/Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Petitioner -versus- 1. The Union of India, Through its Secretary, (MHA)/ North Block, Post Office and Police Station- North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Director General, CISF Block No.13, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Post Office and Police Station- Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. The Inspector General, CISF, East Sector HQRS, Post Office and Police Station- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Inspector General CISF, East Zone, Post Office and Police Station- Patliputra Colony, District- Patna, Bihar-800001. 5. The Commandant, CISF Unit, DMRC, Shashtri Park, Post Office and Police Station- Shashtri Park, Delhi-110053 … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C. ---- 2/ 13.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner for the 'PROMOTION' as per entitlement, according to CISF Rule-24 of CISF Rules 2001, and according to Article-16(4-A) of the Constitution of India. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Constable G.D since 1994. He has successfully passed the course of drill instructor in 1998 and the Promotion Cadre-Course exam in CISF/CAPF in the year 2005 while in SHAPE-I category (Medical Category). However, since the year 2016, the petitioner was under SHAPE-2 (Medical Category). The petitioner made several representations for his promotion but the respondents never took any action. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred writ application being W.P(S). No. 2540 of 2022, wherein this Hon’ble Court passed order in favour of the petitioner but yet no promotion was given to the petitioner. 2025:JHHC:24368 -: 2 :- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating that the petitioner was 100% fit till the year 2010 and had served for 16 years in the CISF. The counsel submits that the petitioner has now served for more than 31 years in the CISF and yet not been considered for promotion. The counsel further states that the petitioner filed a representation dated 20.11.2024 along with the order dated 15.10.2024, but the CISF authorities have rejected it vide letter No. 2292. The counsel also contends that this Hon’ble Court vide order passed in L.P.A. No. 277 of 2011 has provided that no person can be denied promotion merely on the ground of disability, thus, the petitioner claims promotion. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that clearing of departmental exams was not the only criteria for grant of promotion to an employee. The counsel submits that the petitioner was not considered for promotion as he had been awarded minor and major punishments in the last five years and also did not secure the required benchmark. He was also found not fit due to low medical category. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the order vide No.E-14013/CISF/DMRC/ADM-II/MISC/2025-2292 dated 10.02.2025, I find that the respondents after considering the representation made by the petitioner, found that the petitioner was inflicted minor as well as major punishments. The respondent has also found the petitioner ‘NOT YET FIT’ due to low medical category(SHAPE-II). 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 while observing that an employee has no right to claim promotion has held:- 29. .... An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests. An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to 2025:JHHC:24368 -: 3 :- have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified.....” 8. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner was considered for promotion, but was not found fit due to medical ground and also as major and minor punishments were inflicted, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02