Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 890
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, Shalinder Kaur, JJ
DEVINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P.(C)-7007/2020
Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj and Ms. Priyanshi Bhardwaj, Advs., Ms. Arti Bansal, SPC, Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul, Adv., Mr. Varun Chugh, Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh and Ms. Meera Chugh, Advs. for UOI
Administrative delays should not adversely affect the seniority of individuals selected through the same process, ensuring settled seniority is preserved.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 - Petitioners sought to fix their seniority in accordance with Rule 3(3)(ii) by extending benefits from a prior judgment (R.P. Sanwal v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12582). - The court found that administrative delays caused their delayed training, impacting their seniority placement. (Paras 1, 36, 40)
(B) Seniority - The court ruled that seniority should not be disturbed due to administrative inefficiencies, affirming that petitioners were entitled to seniority based on merit alongside their batchmates. (Paras 38, 42)
(C) Administrative Justice - The court emphasized that individuals should not be penalized for delays caused by administrative actions, reinforcing the principle of settled seniority. (Paras 37, 41)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were selected for the post of Assistant Commandant in the BSF but faced delays in training due to medical and administrative issues. They sought to have their seniority fixed alongside their batchmates based on merit. (Paras 4, 36)
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to notionally re-fix the seniority of the petitioners in accordance with their merit position, alongside the 16th batch, without disturbing the seniority of other officers. (Paras 42, 43)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners’ seniority could be fixed alongside their batchmates despite administrative delays and the applicability of prior judgments regarding seniority. (Paras 1, 40)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative delays should not adversely affect the seniority of individuals who have been selected through the same process, and that settled seniority must be preserved. (Paras 36, 37)
Result: Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
1. The present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed inter alia, seeking an issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioners in accordance with the Rule 3(3) (ii) of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of officers) Rules 1978, ("the Rules") by extending the benefit of the Judgment passed by this Court in R.P. Sanwal v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12582 , along with other petitions in the batch, to them.
Brief Facts
2. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7007 of 2020 shall hereinafter be referred to as petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8005 of 2020 shall hereinafter be referred to as petitioner no. 2. As the facts of both the petitions are similar in nature, these are accordingly being dealt with together vide this common Judgment.
3. The petitions pertain to the selection and appointment of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Commandant, Group A post in the Border Security Force (BSF).
4. The petitioners, aspiring to join the said post, responded to an advertisement issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Central Police Organization, in the year 1991. The petitioners duly participated in the selection process and successfully cleared the written examination conducted on 15.09.1991. Subsequently, they also qualified in the prescribed physical test and interview. Having remained successful at every stage of the selection process, the petitioners were duly included in the list of selected candidates. Thereafter, the Secretary, Special Selection Board (CPO-91), forwarded the dossiers of the selected candidates, including the petitioners, for the post of Assistant Commandant to the Deputy Director (Personnel), Directorate General, BSF, New Delhi, through various lists.
5. The Assistant Commandants selected for appointment in the BSF were, for administrative reasons, divided into two batches for the purpose of undergoing the Basic Training Course (BTC). Accordingly, the 16th batch commenced its training on 01.02.1993, while the 17th batch commenced its training on 02.07.1993.
6. The petitioner no. 1 was initially declared medically ‘unfit’ for appointment and, as a result, was unable to commence the Basic Training Course with the 16th batch. However, upon undergoing a Review Medical Examination on 22/23.03.1993, he was declared medically ‘fit’ and was thereafter assigned to undergo training with the 17th batch.
7. Likewise, the petitioner no. 2, due to an administrative delay in the receipt of his Medical Fitness Report and Character Verification Report, was also assigned to the 17th batch for the BTC.
8. The names of the Assistant Commandants from the 16th and 17th batches were initially included in the gradation list dated 18.07.1995, on a provisional basis, with the petitioners being given the seniority along with officers who underwent training as the 17th Batch. However, pursuant to a clarification issued by the MHA, by the order dated 27.11.1995, the inter-se seniority of the officers from both the batches was clubbed and the petitioners were given notional seniority along with the officers of the 16th Batch based on the aggregate marks obtained during the selection process and the passing-out examination at the BSF Academy, irrespective of the commencement dates of their respective training courses.
9. In interregnum, before the commencement of the 16th and 17th batches, various personnels who were already working in the rank of Inspectors, were promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant with effect from 15.03.1993. As per the administrative directions, by the order dated 27.11.1995 referred to hereinabove, the officers promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant during this period were placed en bloc junior to the officers of both the 16th and 17th batches.
10. Mr. Om Prakash Sharm
