Seniority of direct recruits is determined by the date of appointment and not the date of selection, as clarified in established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 14th January 2020 and/or prior and post seniority lists issued by Personnel Directorate, BSF. Petitioner seeks direction to the Respondents to re-draw the seniority list and grant seniority to the Petitioner/Petitioner's batch over the promoted inspectors/Promotee Officers.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was declared successful for appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant on 02nd November 2004 when the final result of the UPSC CPF (Assistant Commandants) Examination-2003 was declared. He, however, states that the Petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant in BSF in 2005. He states that in the interregnum, around 102 Inspectors were promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant on 10th August 2005 against the promotion quota for which DPC was conducted on 26th May 2005.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that even though the Petitioner's selection was prior to the promotion of the promotee Inspectors/promotee Officers, yet they were placed above the Petitioner's batch in the seniority list circulated by Personnel Directorate, BSF, as circulated vide the impugned letter. He emphasises that these Promotee Officers have been placed from seniority No. 1477 to 1527, whereas the Petitioner's seniority No. is 1561 in the said list.

4. He states that the Petitioner sent a representation to the Director General, BSF requesting re-examination of the matter of fixation of inter-se seniority of direct recruits of AC (DE) Batch Srl. No. 30 and Promotee Officers appointed on 10th August 2005 which was rejected by the Respondent holding that the inter se seniority has been correctly assigned by the department.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that bare perusal of the Rule 7(2) of BSF Recruitment Rules, 2001 shows that the rank seniority of officers appointed to any post shall be determined in accordance with the order of selection for appointment to that post. The said Rule 7 of BSF (General Duty Officer) Recruitment Rules, 2001 is reproduced hereinbelow:

"(1) All officers holding a higher rank shall be senior to the officers holding a lower rank.

(2) In a particular rank seniority of Officers appointed to any post shall be determined in accordance with the order of selection for appointment to that post.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub rule (2) inter se seniority amongst officers holding the same rank shall be as follows namely:

(i) Seniority of officers promoted on the same day shall be determined in the order in which they are selected for promotion to that rank.

(ii) Seniority of direct entrants shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by them before the Selection Board and at the passing out examination conducted at the Border Security Force Academy;

(iii) Seniority of temporary officers subject to the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii) shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit at the time of their selection and officers selected on an earlier batch will be senior to officers selected in subsequent batches;

(iv) Seniority of officers, subject to the provisions of clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), shall be determined according to the date of their continuous appointment in that rank;

Provided that in case of direct entrants, the date of appointment shall be the date of commencement of their training course at the Border Security Force Academy."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasises that the Petitioner herein was selected on 02nd November 2004, even though the appointment date was September 2005, and therefore the Petitioner's rank o