The inter se seniority of LDCE candidates is determined based on the marks obtained in both LDCE and Basic Professional Course, as per the Scheme and Relegation Policy.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. - CM No.2510/2020

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P. (C) 924/2021 & CM APPL. 2509/2021

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. The seven petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the issuance of the Seniority List dated 24th April, 2020 and the order dated 12th October, 2020 whereby their objections to it, taken in their Legal Notice dated 6th August, 2020, were rejected. The petition has been filed with the following prayers: -

"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order No. I.15013/01/2013/PERS-1029 dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-l) and impugned seniority list issued vide No. 1-15013/ 2/ 2020/ PERS-5802-35 dated 24.04.2020 (Annexure P-2) for the post of Asst. Comdt. /GD (LDCE) and re-fix the inter-se-seniority of the petitioners accordingly with all consequential benefits.

(ii) To declare the action of the respondents in issuing impugned order No. I.15013/01/2013/PERS-1029 dated 12.10.2020 and impugned seniority list issued vide No. I15013/ 2/ 2020/ PERS 5802-35 dated 24.04.2020 for the post of Asst. Comdt. /GD (LDCE) as arbitrary and illegal and re-fix the inter-se-seniority of the petitioners accordingly with all consequential benefits.

(iii) To direct the respondents to amend the recruitment rules for the post of General Duty Cadre (Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2010 (Annexure P-3) to the extent it does not provide the word 'LDCE' under 'Seniority' clause as provided in other sister services recruitment rules.

(iv) To allow the writ petition with cost."

3. The petitioners are presently working at the post of Assistant Commandant/GD(LDCE) having cleared the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short, "LDCE") on 4 th December, 2012. Their grievance is that till the year 2018, their inter se seniority had not yet been determined and when the respondents issued the impugned Seniority List on 24th April, 2020, it was in gross violation of the Scheme for LDCE promotion brought into effect in the year 2000, as well as the previous practice and against the Recruitment Rules (RRs). According to the petitioners, the inter se seniority had to be fixed as per the marks obtained in the Exam but the impugned Seniority List was drawn up on the basis of the total marks obtained not only in the LDCE but also in the Basic Professional Course.

4. Sh. M.D.Jangra, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that it was only in the year 2000 vide the communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs bearing No. MHA UO No.I-45022/83/2000-Pers.I dated 21st August, 2000 that it was decided to introduce a system of Limited Departmental Examination for promotion to the rank of AC(GD) to the extent of 17% of the vacancies in the promotion quota. The learned counsel submitted that though vide this communication (Annexure P-10 to the petition) the RRs were also to be amended, but till date, the RRs have not been amended. The learned counsel also submitted that as per the Scheme for the Central Police Organisations, seniority was to be fixed in the following manner: -

"9. Seniority:

The personnel recruited through Ltd. Departmental Competitive Examination will be treated as part of promotions quota and their seniority will be with reference to the date of selection as per DOP&T's OM NO. 22011/5/76-Estt.'D' dated 24.6.78. Within the candidates selected through LDCE the inter-se-seniority will be as per their position in the merit list of LDCE."

5. According to the learned counsel, "the merit" meant the marks obtained in the exam. To bolster this argument, he submitted that the seniority list published on 5 th February, 2014 was drawn up only on the basis of the marks obtained in the exam. However, on perusal, this list (placed as Annexure P-5 to the petition) does not seem to have been drawn up solely on the basis of the marks obtained in the LDCE as it is not so mentioned.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the IndoTibetan Border Police