Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Kavyanjali Dubey & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5441 of 2016
Decided On : 07-07-2023
Seniority - Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) - Gazette Notifications of 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 - Para-8 of the Gazette Notification dated 10.05.2003 - DoPT O.M. dated 03.07.1986 and 11.11.2010 - W.P. (C) No. 8070/2014 - B.S. Bajwa and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1998) 2 SCC 523 - B.S. Jaswal Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13724
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash Gazette Notifications and Revised Seniority Lists issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs affecting their seniority in CISF. The dispute arose from the criteria for determining seniority amongst direct recruits in CISF and the subsequent revisions made by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Ministry of Home Affairs had issued Gazette Notifications in 2003 and 2007, which stipulated the criteria for determining seniority. The Court also noted the orders in W.P. (C) No. 8070/2014 directing the revision of seniority lists based on the Gazette Notification of 2007. The Court considered the arguments and decisions cited by both parties, including the relevance of past practice and the impact of delays in revising seniority.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Gazette Notifications, the relevance of past practice and established norms, and the impact of delays in revising seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the revised seniority lists, based on the marks obtained in the competitive examination and professional training course in the ratio of 50:50, were well merited and did not call for any interference.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the revised seniority lists were upheld as merited.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. Vide this petition, petitioners are seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari directing the respondents to quash the Gazette Notifications issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the years 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 to the extent it applies to Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in respect of combined Central Police Forces (CPFs) recruitment examination wherein it is stipulated that the inter se seniority amongst direct recruits, shall be determined by adding together the marks obtained by them in Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC); in the foundation course in the BSF Academy; and the professional training course conducted by the Academy in the ratio of 50:10:40. In addition, quashing of Revised Seniority Lists dated 31.12.2015 and 10.03.2016 issued by the respondents with the modified criteria is also sought.
2. Petitioners claim to have joined CISF in the rank of Assistant Commandant in different years ranging from 2003 till 2011. Petitioners are aggrieved of unsettling their seniority vide Revised Seniority Lists dated 31.12.2015 and 10.03.2016 issued by the respondents.
3. According to petitioners, Para-8 of the Gazette Notification dated 10.05.2003 notified that the criterion of seniority amongst the direct recruits shall be determined by adding together the marks obtained by them in Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination conducted by the UPSC in the foundation courses; in the BSF Academy and the professional training course conducted by the academy of the respective Force in the ratio of 50:10:40.
4. Pursuant thereto other Central Police Forces (CPFs), excluding the CISF, modified their Recruitment Rules and seniority of Assistant Commandants was regulated as per merit list prepared upon the total marks obtained in the ratio of 50:10:40. However, in CISF no amendment was carried out to the recruitment rules to amalgamate the above-mentioned criterion. No foundation course was ever conducted by the CISF and so, 10% marks allotted for such a course could not be interpolated by the respondents. Also the professional training to the newly inducted Commandants at the Academy of CISF was also a qualifying training only. Accordingly, CISF Seniority List was prepared on the basis of marks achieved as per the Merit List of UPSC Examination only, which was the sole basis for establishing inter se seniority of newly inducted Assistant Commandants.
5. According to petitioners, the basis to prepare the Seniority List in CISF is DoPT O.M. dated 03.07.1986, further revised by DoPT vide O.M. dated 11.11.2010, which stipulates that the seniority of all direct recruits is determined by the order of merit in which they are appointed after the recommendations of the UPSC.
6. In the year 2018, a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 8070/2014 challenging the Seniority Lists dated 31.12.2010, 30.06.2013 and September 2014 issued by CISF was filed praying that the seniority lists should have been prepared on the basis of marks obtained in ratio of 50:10:40 in the UPSC examination, foundation course and professional training, as per the Gazette Notification of 2007. According to petitioners, they were not a party to the said petition and the respondent-CISF did not challenge petitioners' contention therein.
7. This Court vide order dated 06.05.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 8070/2014 directed the respondents to issue revised seniority list in terms of Gazette Notification of the year 2007. Thereafter, respondents issued seniority list dated 31.12.2015 revising inter se seniority of Assistant Commandants appointed in the CAPF Examination of the year 2007.
8. Thereafter, the respondents floated a proposal dated 14.01.2016 to carry out amendment in the Recruitment Rules for preparing the seniority list based upon the marks obtained in the UPSC Examination and professional training course in the ratio of 50:50. A
The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of Gazette Notifications and their impact on determining seniority, considering past practice and the impact of delays in revising se....
The seniority of candidates appointed from the Reserve List does not rank senior to the candidates initially recommended/appointed in terms of the first recommendation of the UPSC, as they possess hi....
Seniority must be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment, as an employee cannot claim seniority for any period prior to their actual entry into the service or their induction into the cadr....
In the absence of a specific 'tie breaker principle', the determining factor for seniority should be 'age'/date of birth and not 'marks'. The court emphasized the importance of following usual practi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that challenges to administrative decisions must be timely and based on relevant legal provisions to merit consideration by the court.
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
The court upheld that seniority must be determined based on recruitment batch and performance in training, emphasizing timely challenges to promotions are essential to maintain stability in service r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
