The court affirmed the principle that ex-servicemen, having been appointed under an apparent legal basis, should not face termination or demotion after years of service, emphasizing fairness and justice in their treatment.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The petitioner in each of these sixteen petitions is an "ex-serviceman", with a "Deemed Graduation Certificate" issued by Indian Army/India Air Force/Indian Navy/Armed Forces Medical Services, and had participated in the examination conducted by the respondent Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in the year 2014 or in the year 2016, in the Ex-servicemen Category, for "Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (SIs) in Delhi Police (DP), Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)" (hereinafter referred to as CAPF EXAMINATION -2014/2016). On success in the said examination, while the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3034/2020, W.P.(C) No.3713/2020 & W.P.(C) 8006/2020 were appointed as SIs in Border Security Force (BSF), the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.6951/2019, 6955/2019, 6957/2019, 6959/2019, 9816/2019, 10248/2019, 2165/2020, 2192/2020, 2928/2020, 2930/2020, 2932/2020, 2987/2020 & 2193/2020, were appointed as SIs in CISF.

2. These petitions were filed, impugning the action of (a) the respondent SSC of, after the petitioners were so appointed and joined service and served for considerable time, revising the result of the CAPF Examination2014/2016 to the prejudice of the petitioners; and, (b) the respondents BSF and CISF, of, as a consequence of the revision of the result, issuing notices to the petitioners appointed as SIs in BSF, to show cause why their services should not be terminated/terminating their service and/or to the petitioners appointed as SIs in CISF, to show cause why they should not be demoted/demoting them to the post of ASI in CISF.

3. The genesis of the actions of respondents SSC/BSF/CISF impugned in these petitions was, that the posts to which the petitioners had been appointed, were Group 'B' posts, the essential educational qualification for appointment whereto was "Bachelor's Degree from a Recognised University or Equivalent", and the petitioners, holding a Deemed Graduation Certificate of the Indian Army/Navy/Air Force/Armed Forces Medical Services, were not eligible therefor and had been inadvertently appointed. The petitioners appointed as SIs in BSF having been found to have secured lesser marks than the last candidate selected in the examination for the post of ASI in CISF, were terminated/sought to be terminated. The petitioners appointed as SIs in CISF having been found to have secured more marks than the last candidate selected in the examination for the post of ASI in CISF, were demoted/sought to be demoted to the post of ASI in CISF. Needless to state, the post of ASI in CISF, is a Group 'C' post.

4. Though the petitions came up before this Court at different times, but the issue for adjudication therein being the same, were collated for adjudication.

5. Though the counsels have argued the entire batch of petitions as one, but it is apposite to list out the relevant factual controversy in each of the petitions.

W.P.(C) 3034/2020, W.P.(C) 3713/2020 & W.P.(C) 8006/2020 (of BSF Personnel)

6. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3034/2020 appeared in the CAPF EXAMINATION -2014 and on 7th September, 2015 was issued the recruitment letter and has been in service since 15th October, 2016. Vide letter dated 6th November, 2019, the respondent SSC, pursuant to revision of the result of the CAPF EXAMINATION -2014, informed BSF of his ineligibility, on the basis of Deemed Graduation Certificate for the post of SI in BSF and that though he was eligible for Group 'C' post of ASI in CISF under the Ex-serviceman Category, but he did not qualify therefor as he had scored lesser marks than the last can