Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, the petition was filed by the petitioners for determining their seniority from the date on which the result was declared and to place them senior to promotee Assistant Commandant, General Duty (‘AC/GD'), promoted against vacancy and selected through Limited Department Competitive Examination (‘LDCE'), the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., opined that the principle of determination of inter se seniority amongst direct recruits and promote officers made it clear that for the purpose of fixation of inter se seniority, the date to be calculated for the direct recruits was “the date of appointment”. Thus, the Court held that inter se seniority of the petitioners had been fixed correctly in accordance with the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (‘CRPF Act'), CRPF Group “A” General Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2010 and relevant Office Memorandums and thus, dismissed the petition.
Background
The petitioners were the direct recruits working as AC/GD with Indo-Tibetan Border Police (‘ITBP') under administrative control of Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Government of India Respondent 1. The petitioners appeared in the Central Police Force (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2010 (‘CAPF (AC) Exam-2010') and the result was declared on 04-10-2011 in which they were found successful, and they joined ITBP.
The petitioners contended that the date of appointment of an Officer was not a deciding factor either in case of determination of inter se seniority or Gradation List seniority. The Seniority of all ACs had to be determined as per the Departmental Standing Orders and Rules.
The petitioners had sought for directions to be issued to the respondent to set-aside/quash Letter/Reply dated 11-04-2017 and Office Order dated 10-07-2019 and to direct the respondents to recast the seniority of the petitioners in the Seniority List, treating the date of effective service of the petitioners with ITBP as, the date of declaration of result i.e. 04-10-2011 and be placed senior to the promote AC/GD against the vacancy year 2011-12 and AC/GD selected through LDCE 2010-11. Further, it was claimed that they should be given notional promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant with consequential benefits.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
On considering the issue of fixation of inter se seniority of the officers from the direct recruitment and promotion, the Court referred to Amit Singh v. Ravindra Nath Pandey, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1559, wherein it was held that “the effective date of selection had to be understood in the context of Service Rules under which the appointment was made. Further, any departure from the statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Seniority could not be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and could not be given retrospectively unless it was so expressly provided by the relevant Service Rules.
The Court examined ITBP Force Rules, 1994, and opined that the ITBP Rules dealt with seniority of the direct entrants, but they did not contain any provision for determination of inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees, whether by seniority or LDCE. Thereafter, the Court examined CRPF Act, Rules framed thereunder, and Standing Order dated 12-10-2009 and opined that by way of the Standing Order, the requisite date for calculating the seniority was the date of appointment which was to be calculated with reference to their batch of training irrespective of the batch in which they were selected.
Furthermore, the Court opined that it was stated in the CRPF Group “A” (General Duty) Officers Recruitment Rules 2010, that the seniority of directly appointed Group A (General Duty) Gazetted Officers through Union Public Service Commission (‘UPSC') and entry of gazetted officers through LDCE quota shall be reckoned “from the date of appointment”, irrespective of the batch in which they were selected and the date of appointment in respect of directly appointed gazetted officers through UPSC should ordinarily mean “the date of commencement of training”.
The Court relied on Subodh Rokade v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2012 and Yash Rattan v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1598, wherein it was held that under service jurisprudence, seniority could not be claimed from the date when the incumbent was yet to be borne in the cadre.
The Court opined that the principle of determination of inter se seniority amongst direct recruits and promote officers made it clear that for the purpose of fixation of inter se seniority, the date to be calculated for the direct recruits was “the date of appointment “. Thus, the Court held that the inter se seniority of the petitioners had been fixed correctly in accordance with the CRPF Act, CRPF Group “A” General Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2010 and relevant Office Memorandums and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
[Jagmohan Vishwakarma v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4494, decided on 31-07-2023]
*Judgment by- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Naushad Alam, Nihil Bhardwaj and Sandeep Pathak, Advocates
For the Respondents: Vikrant N. Goyal, Tesu Gupta, Ayushi Garg, Sagar Saxena and Parmeet Singh, Advocates
