The timing of training and the date of appointment were crucial in determining the seniority of LDCEs and DAGOs, and the court emphasized the application of relevant rules and orders in resolving the dispute.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. The three Petitioners who were all appointed as Assistant Commandants ("ACs") in the Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF") through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations mode ("LDCE") are in this petition seeking a direction to the Respondents to re-fix their seniority in the rank of ACs by placing them above the Respondent Nos. 4 to 56 in the seniority list dated 1st January, 2016.

2. The facts which are not in dispute are that each of the three Petitioners was initially appointed in the CRPF in the rank of Sub Inspector /General Duty ("SI/GD"). Petitioner No.1 was appointed on 3rd March, 2003, the Petitioner No.2 on 18th December, 2003 and the Petitioner No.3 on 28th February, 2003. They sat for the LDCE 8th Direct Entry Gazetted Officers (DEGO) Batch for the post of AC and successfully qualified the same on 16th September, 2009. They underwent the basic training with the DEGO (8th Batch) conducted at the CRPF Academy, Kadarpur with effect from November, 2009 to mid 2010. Each of the Petitioners was appointed thereafter as AC on 25th November, 2009.

3. As far as the Respondent Nos. 4 to 56 were concerned, they qualified with the 41st batch of Directly Appointed Gazetted Officers ("DAGOs") batch, result for which were declared on 27th October, 2008. Their dates of appointments were on various dates beginning 4th December, 2009.

4. The stand of the Respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the present petition to justify the placing of the three Petitioners below the Respondent Nos. 4 to 56 in the seniority list of 1st January, 2016 is that in case of DAGOs and DEGOs, the year of declaration of results shall be the year of seniority as per the proviso below Rule 8 (3) (iv) of the CRPF Group "A" (General Duty) Officers Recruitment Rules, 2001 ("2001 Rules"). It is accordingly contended that since the Respondent Nos. 4 to 56 belonging to the 41st batch DAGOs were selected on an earlier date, regardless of the fact that they were appointed by the CRPF as ACs later than the Petitioners, they would be considered senior to the Petitioners. It is further pointed out that the appointment of the Petitioners through LDCE mode, has been treated as part of promotion quota for the year 2008-09 and the seniority has been fixed with reference to the date of publication of the result in terms of the OM dated 24th June, 1978 of the Department of Personnel and Training ("DoPT"), Government of India.

5. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 56. Apart from relying on the decision of this Court dated 6th January, 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 4940/2011 (Krishna Kumar Singh v. Union of India), Respondent Nos. 4 to 56 also rely on the proviso to Rule 8 (3) (iv) of the 2001 Rules which states that "in the case of direct entrants, the year of declaration of results shall be the year of seniority" and further that the inter se seniority of the directly recruited ACs and promotees "will be decided as per orders or DoPT issued from time to time".

6. Ms Saahila Lamba, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, points out the distinction between those recruited through the LDCE mode and those that have been promoted as ACs. She points out that Rule 8 (3) (iv) only talks of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees whereas those selected through the LDCE mode cannot be treated as direct recruits. She points to the fact that the Respondents contradict themselves in stating that the LDCEs have to be treated as part of the promotion quota on the one hand, and at the same time, maintaining that they would be treated as direct entrants for the purposes of the proviso to Rule 8 (3) (iv) of the 2001 Rules. According to her, the correct position is that there is nothing in the 2001 Rules that applies to the seniority of ACs appointed through the mode of LDCE. Since this was a grey area, Standing Order (S.O.) No.1 of 2009 dated 12th January, 2009 was issued which clearly states that the