Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who was working on the post of Head Constable for promotion on the post of ASI from the date when similarly situated employees were granted promotion on the post of ASI with all consequential benefits. Further, it is prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to grant relaxatio0n from the mandatory condition i.e., two years of mandatory field services (MFS) duty to be rendered in a duty battalion and the petitioner may kindly be afforded the promotion on the post of ASI from the date of his entitlement. The petitioner is claiming his right on the basis of the circular dated 2.6.2012 whereby certain relaxations were provided.
(2.) IN the reply filed by the respondents in para No. 6 the following assertions were made by the respondent, which reads as under: - - "6. That meanwhile, the petitioner submitted a representation in 31.01.2013, addressed to the Director General, GSF and on the basis of which a case was forwarded to SHQ BSF, Jaisalmer (South) by 27 Bn. FSF vide letter dated 02.02.2013. SHQ BSF, Jaisalmer (South) forwarded the case of the petitioner for one time relaxation of two years mandatory field service to Ftr. HQr Rajasthan vide letter dated 08.05.2013, Ftr HQr Rajasthan forwarded the case to FHQ (Pers Dte) vide letter dated 17.06.2013. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Director General, BSF has accorded approval to refer the case to the Ministry of Home Affairs for relaxation in the requirement of two years MFS in respect of the petitioner. Accordingly, a proposal to this effect stands referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs, by FHQ BSF (Pers Dte) vide UO No. 17/58/2013 -PERS/BSF/PT -IX/13385 dated 29.11.2013. The decision of the same is still awaited as the case of the petitioner is under consideration with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, in these circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed being premature as the petitioner without awaiting decision on his representation has preferred the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court."
(3.) UPON perusal of above reply it is revealed that matter of the petitioner was under consideration during the pendency of the writ petition but the respondents filed additional affidavit before this Court on 24.4.2013 in which it is stated in para No. 4 of the additional affidavit that Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi did not agree to the proposal sent by FHQ (Pers Dte) vide UO dated 29.11.2013 and observed that the petitioner failed to complete the requisite Mandatory Field Service knowing fully well that it was a prerequisite for his promotion as such there is no justification for grant of relaxation in requirement of MFS. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the grounds communicated vide communication dated 29.11.2013 were considered and straightway it is communicated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi that petitioner is not entitled for regularization as per the circular.;