Seniority among direct recruits is determined by the date of continuous regular appointment, with delays due to medical issues not affecting this determination.

JUDGMENT

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. By order dated 25 February 2019, a Division Bench of this Court referred these matters to a Larger Bench of three Judges, as the Division Bench felt that, on the issue in controversy in these writ petitions, different Division Benches of this Court had ruled differently.

2. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Farman Ali, Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj, Mr. Subhash Tanwar and Mr. Manish Mohan, learned CGSC for the respondents, at length.

3. To our mind, the issue in controversy can be decided by a mere reference to the applicable Rule.

4. Facts in these writ petitions being identical, we refer to the facts in WP (C) 84/2019, Jai Mangal Rai v. Union of India.

5. Applications for direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector [“SI” hereinafter] in the Central Police Organizations were invited by the Staff Selection Commission in 2002. The petitioner applied, seeking appointment as SI in the Border Security Force³ [“BSF” hereinafter]. Written examination was held on 12 January 2003, which the petitioner cleared. He also cleared the Physical Efficiency Test on 26 March 2003. However, in the Medical Examination which took place on 9 June 2003, he was declared unfit as suffering from Caries Teeth. The petitioner appealed against the decision on 12 June 2003, seeking reconsideration by a Review Medical Board, [“RMB” hereinafter]. While his appeal was pending, others, who had participated with him in the selection and had not been medically disqualified, were appointed and joined as SI. It was only on 19 December 2003 that the petitioner was called to attend the Review Medical Examination, [“RME” hereinafter], which took place on 1 January 2004. Though the RME declared the petitioner to be fit, the result was communicated to the petitioner only a year and five months later, on 24 January 2005. The petitioner was issued an appointment letter, appointing him as SI, on 3 March 2005, and he joined on 7 March 2005, nearly a year and seven months after his batchmates.

6. The petitioner represented to the respondents, seeking seniority as SI along with those who had undertaken the selection along with him. The representation was rejected by the respondents on 31 May 2018, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma , (2013) 11 SCC 451.

7. When the writ petitions came up for hearing on 25 February 2019, the Division Bench noted that there appeared to be a cleavage of opinion on the issue, with the judgments in Naveen Kumar Jha v. Union of India , 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5606 (DB), Avinash Singh v. Union of India , 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2432 (DB), Ram Pal Deswal v. Union of India⁹, [Judgment dated 7 March 2011 in WP (C) 393/2008] M.V. Sheshagiri v. Union of India , (2019) 173 DRJ 267 (DB), Naresh Kumar v. Union of India , 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13015 (DB) and Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India , [Judgment dated 14 February 2011 in WP (C) 19748/2005] favouring the case of the petitioner and the judgment in Shoorvir Singh Negi v. Union of India, MANU/DE/3865/2015 (DB) ruling per contra. It was further noticed that, in Rohitash Kumar, the Supreme Court had left undisturbed the decision in Dinesh Kumar, despite noticing it in para 35.

8. Paras 6 and 7 of the order dated 25 February 2019, in these writ petitions, therefore, conclude thus:

“6. Therefore, there is clear difference of opinions by different DBs of this Court on the issue of fixation of seniority of members of BSF along with those of the same batch wi