Order

Writ Petition (C) No. 211/97 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents 1 and 2 to implement the judgment of this Court dated January 19, 1995 in Ravi Paul & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1 and also the Order dated July 18, 1995 of this Court in R.C. Sahi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and for other consequential reliefs as well.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that this Court in R.C. Sahi’s case had expressly directed the first respondent to revise the senior­ity list, if necessary, after hearing the officers concerned, in accordance with law. The first respondent, according to the petition­ers, purporting to implement the order of this Court in Sahi’s case, had prepared a seniority list ignoring the relevant provisions of law which had affected their seniority. It is to be noted, the peti­tioners were also parties in Sahi’s case.

3. Though the issue lies in a narrow compass, wide ranging arguments were addressed by the learned counsel in this case.

4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether Re­spondents 1 and 2 are justified in taking into account the past services of the private respondents in the Army for the purpose of fixing seniority between the petitioners-direct-recruits and the respondent-Emergency Commissioned Officers (for short ‘ECOs’).

5. At this stage, a brief recount of the facts relating to the issue is necessary. The Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘CRPF’), with which we are now concerned, came into existence under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. The CRPF Rules were framed in the year 1965 to deal with various matters. Rule 105 related to appointment and promotion of superior officers. By Notification No. F. 2/4/67. P-II dated May 11, 1967 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, an amendment to Rule 105 was introduced by adding Clause (iv-A) to Rule 105. By the said amendment, appointment of Emergency Commissioned Officers (ECOs) and Short-Service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union was introduced as one of the modes of recruitment. Since then, dispute between the direct-recruits and the ECOs started in the matter of seniority and the consequential promotions.

6. Initially, respondents 1 and 2 did not admit that the ECOs would come under the category of Army Officers. Later on, it was conceded that they would come under the category of Army Officers.

7. When the past service in the Army by the ECOs was ignored in the matter of seni­ority and promotion, they moved the Delhi High Court for necessary directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to include their past Army service for the purpose of seniority and consequential promotion. The Delhi High Court by its decision dated September 2, 1985 in C.W. No. 44/85 accepted the claim of the ECOs. Inter alia, the issue relating to the application of Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short-Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation and Vacancies) Rules, 1967 (for short ‘1967 Rules’) was also considered by the Delhi High Court. The learned Judges categorically held as follows:-

“However, we think that these reservation Rules have no application to the case of petitioners (ECOs). The reason for this is that the peti­tioners have been treated as a separate source of recruitment for the Central Reserve Police Force, 1955 after their amendment. No question of reservation as such is involved in the recruitment of the petition­ers. Once they are recruited, the next question is the seniority and pay they have to enjoy in the service after recruitment.”

8. The above judgment of the Delhi High Court was challenged before this Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1390/85 and 16911/85. This Court by a reasoned order dated January 21, 1986 dismissed the S.L.Ps upholding the judgment of the Delhi High Court. No doubt, a three Judge Bench of this Court in Ravi Paul’s case had observed that the judgment of the Delhi High Court, as affirmed by this Court, had not