SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
 
Mohan Lal Besarwadiya & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Reserve Bank Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 11097 of 2025
Decided on : 29-07-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amit B. Mohanty, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Ms. Nisha Sharma, and Ms. Tanya Choudhary, Advocates, Mr. Ravi Kant Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI with Mr. Robert Laishram and Mr. Bhupender, Advocates

Eligibility criteria for recruitment can be challenged only under circumstances showing arbitrariness or unreasonableness, with legislative discretion in defining categories being respected unless manifestly irrational.

Headnote:(A) Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 - Article 14 of the Constitution - Eligibility criteria for Assistant Manager (Protocol and Security) limited to ex-servicemen, excluding Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel - Previous inclusion aimed at clearing backlog is not a permanent classification - Classification challenged as arbitrary; court upheld it citing absence of arbitrariness within statutory definitions. (Paras 10-12)

(B) Judicial Review - Court’s role is restrained in evaluating eligibility criteria, only to consider ‘reasonableness’ and ‘arbitrariness’ - Authority has discretion to define eligibility based on operational needs and classifications are legitimate unless arbitrary. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners serving as Assistant Commandants in CAPF challenged RBI’s advertisement limiting eligibility for ex-servicemen to personnel from regular armed forces, finding previous acceptance of CAPF personnel for a finite term a non-precedent.

Findings of Court:
Classification upheld, affirming that current applicant categories do not violate legality nor do they justify claims of arbitrariness due to rational nexus to statutory definitions.

Issues: Whether exclusion of CAPF personnel from eligibility criteria violates principles of equality and fairness under Article 14.

Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized the necessity of respecting legislative classifications as long as they are not inherently arbitrary or unreasonable, confirming that operational discretion in hiring belongs to the employer.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. eligibility criteria based on service category. (Para 2)
2. judiciary role in recruitment classification. (Para 3 , 6 , 7)
3. evaluation of arguments regarding capf categorizations. (Para 4 , 5 , 9 , 12)
4. justification of classification under article 14. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
5. conclusion upholding eligibility criteria. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

CM APPL. 45654/2025 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 11097/2025 & CM APPL. 45655/2025 (for direction)

1. Issue notice. Mr. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 – The Reserve Bank of India [“RBI”]. Mr. Ravi Kant Srivastava, learned Senior Panel Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the Union of India.

2. There are four petitioners in this writ petition, who all are serving at the level of Assistant Commandant/Deputy Commandant in various Central Armed Police Forces [“CAPF”], with more than ten years of service. They assail an advertisement issued by RBI in July 2025, by which eligibility conditions for the post of Assistant Manager (Protocol and Security) have been limited to ex-servicemen of the regular Army, Navy, and Air Force.

3. The very same issue came up for consideration in a writ petition filed by a similarly placed officer in the Border Security Force [“BSF”]. By a judgment dated 28.07.2025 in W.P.(C) 10662/2025 [Vikash Kumar vs. Reserve Bank of India Through Its General Manager & Anr.], this Court held as follows:

“6. Mr. Babu submits that the impugned decision is consistent with Rule 2(c) of the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 [“1979 Rules”] (as amended in the year 2020), which defines an “ex-serviceman” as follows:

“2. Definitions

(c) An ex-serviceman means a person-

(i) who has served in any rank whether as a combatant or noncombatant in the Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union and

(a) who either has been retired or relieved or discharged from such service whether at his own request or being relieved by the employer after earning his or her pension: or

(b) who has been relieved from such service on medical grounds attributable to military service or circumstances beyond his control and awarded medical or other disability pension: or

(c) who has been released from such service as a result of reduction in establishment: or

(ii) who has been released from such service after completing the specific period of engagement, otherwise than at his own request, or by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency and has been given a gratuity; and included personnel of the Territorial Army, namely, pension holders for continuous embodied service or broken spells of qualifying service;

Provided that Short Service Commissioner officers released from service after completing initial terms of engagement otherwise than by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency and have been given gratuity shall be eligible to the status of Exservicemen. or

(iii) personnel of the Army Postal Service who are part of Regular Army and retired from the Army Postal Service without reversion to their parent service with pension, or are released from the Army Postal Service on medical grounds attributable to or aggravated by military service or circumstance beyond their control and awarded medical or other disability pension: or

(iv) personnel, who were on deputation in Army Postal Service for more than six months prior to the 14th April 1987; or

(v) Gallantry award winners of the Armed Forces including personnel of Territorial Army;

(vi) ex-recruits boarded out or relieved on medical ground and granted medical disability pension.”

7. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents further reads as follows:

“4. It is submitted that the Respondents have been recruiting only “exservicemen” for the posts of Assistant Manager (Protocol and Security) in its organi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top