The merger of cadres was premature, violative of the prescribed procedure for due consultation and in the face of the extant Recruitment Rules. The Notification was without the approval of the Ministry of Finance as well as of the UPSC. The approval of the Ministry of Law was upon the condition that the approval of the UPSC too would be sought in this regard. The latter was never sought. Therefore the approval of the Ministry of Law cannot be said to have come into effect.

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. These batch of writ petitions have impugned the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2010 issued by the respondents whereby the officers of Minor Cadres have been merged with that of the GD Cadre and a combined seniority list of the General Duty Cadre Group A officers (hereafter referred to as the “GD Cadre”) have been notified along with Minor Cadres officers. Furthermore, the seniority of the officers has been fixed on the basis of their respective date of appointment, as a result whereof the petitioners have been placed below the private respondents (in these writ petitions) in the seniority list. It is the petitioners’ case that they had been selected earlier than the private respondents who had been selected subsequently by their respective selection body. They have accordingly, sought quashing of the orders dated 1.4.2011, 5.5.2011 along with the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2010 and the combined seniority list dated 1.12.2010. The petitioners further seek a writ of mandamus for maintenance of a separate seniority list of the GD Cadre officers and the Minor Cadre officers who have been appointed prior to 5.10.2010 or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to place the private respondents below the petitioners in the combined seniority list, if continued.

2. The petitioners’ case is that they are Group ‘A’ General Duty (GD) Cadre officers of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (for short ‘ITBPF’), which was constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (hereafter referred to as the “MHA”) after the Chinese Aggression in the year 1962 under the provisions of the ITBPF Act and Rules; that they had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant/GD in Central Police Organizations, Group ‘A’ and after having cleared the written examination conducted by the UPSC, they appeared before the interview board in August/September, 2004 and were finally selected on 30.9.2004; that in July, 2004, after having cleared the written examination, they were called for PET and DME; that the appointment letter was sent after a delay of nine (9) months in July, 2005; the petitioners joined the ITBP Academy on 7.8.2005; on successful completion of their training on 3.11.2006, they were posted in different battalions. Correspondingly, the respondents initiated the process of recruitment of Assistant Commandants in the Telecom Cadre and constituted a Special Selection Board in September, 2004. On 17.1.2005, the private respondents were asked to appear before the Board for verification of documents, physical measurement and PET. The candidates who qualified were asked to appear in the written examination. The candidates who were successful in the written examination were called for interview and medical examination on 21.1.2005. The result of successful candidates was declared in March, 2005 and in the subsequent month, they were offered appointment for the post of Assistant Commandants (Telecom). Between the period 6.6.2005 and 8.8.2005, these Assistant Commandants (Telecom) joined different ITBPF Battalions on different dates, as they were not required to undergo training in the first instance, hence, they were sent directly to their allotted units. Likewise, the officers of the MT Cadre also joined the ITBPF between April-June, 2005 on the basis of the results declared by another Special Selection Board of the ITBPF. Vide Memorandum dated 27.8.2008, the respondents notified the inter se seniority of direct recruits (AC/GD) in respect of officers of the GD Cadre only. Ms. Jyoti Singh, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, would submit that the aforesaid process would show that the selection process of the GD Cadre officers is far more difficult, onerous and involving different qualification parameters such as having to undergo a long training before they were actually appointed to the said post.