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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Ajay Digpaul, JJ
SANJAY KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1571/2018 | W.P.(C) 8796/2020 | W.P.(C) 5247/2021 | W.P.(C) 7064/2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Mr. Kumar Mihir, Mr. Athul Joseph, Ms. Muskan Shayla, Ms. Nidhi Raman, Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Ganesh A. Khemka, Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Ms. Vidhi Gupta
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. PC, Ms. Ojaswini Jain, Mr. Neeraj, Sr. PC, Mr. Vedansh Anand, Mr. Rudra Paliwal, Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Sr. Adv., Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. Joby P Varghese, Mr. Navneet Soni, Mr. Aby P Varghese, Ms. Rashi Goyal

The seniority of Assistant Commandants must be determined under the latest Recruitment Rules, with previous guidelines being inapplicable once newer provisions are enacted.

Headnote:(A) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Relevant Recruitment Rules promulgated 2003, 2010, 2012 - Consideration of seniority for Assistant Commandants - Seniority must be determined based on continuous appointment without reliance on dated executive instructions, as newer rules supersede prior regulations. (Paras 25.1, 25.6, 29.1)

(B) Office Memorandum dated 24 June 1978 - Disputed applicability for seniority determination among direct recruits and promotees in light of recent judgments indicating non-reliance on older memoranda when newer recruitment rules are in force. (Paras 28.4.10, 29.1)

(C) Litigation among direct recruits and promotees regarding seniority - Contentions around rules and orders relating to appointment processes, focusing on perceptions of seniority and the order of selection across multiple recruitment categories. (Paras 5.1, 5.3, 28.2.1)

Facts of the case:
Writ petitions concern determining inter se seniority among Assistant Commandants across various modes of recruitment namely direct recruitment, promotion, and Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). Petitioners argue against the application of the Office Memorandum and Rules promulgated in previous years, asserting reliance on the most recent Rules post-2012 issuance that lacked seniority provisions.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the 2010 RRs applicable, which indicates that the 2012 RRs do not supersede every rule; rather, they change recruitment methods without barring previous seniority considerations.

Issues: Whether the inter se seniority among Assist. Commandants should be governed by earlier or new recruitment rules, particularly in the light of prior executive orders regarding seniority.

Ratio Decidendi: Court established that seniority among Assist. Commandants must be derived from the most recent updates in recruitment regulations, with the 1978 MO deemed not applicable to the current context.

Result: Impugned seniority lists quashed, and seniority is to be redetermined based on continuous appointment dates as per Rule 5(3)(iv) of the 2010 RRs.

Table of Content
1. overview of employment petitions concerning seniority. (Para 1 , 2)
2. historical context and evolution of recruitment rules. (Para 3)
3. discussion of executive instructions and recruitment processes. (Para 5)
4. overview of various recruitment rules. (Para 6)
5. analytical considerations of the applicable rules in context. (Para 24)
6. the court's conclusion on seniority determination process. (Para 25 , 30 , 31)
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

The lis

1. These writ petitions are concerned with the seniority of Assistant Commandants1 in the Sahastra Seema Bal2.

2. Recruitment Rules governing the seniority of ACs in the SSB were first promulgated in the form of the Special Service Bureau Assistant Commandant Group ‘A’ (General Duty) post Recruitment Rules, 20033.

3. Relevant executive instructions

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant executive instructions, around which the controversy in these writ petitions revolves.

3.1 Standing Order 06/2001 dated 23 February 2001 issued by the DG, CRPF

Prior to 2001, there were only two modes of recruitment for ACs in the SSB, which were direct recruitment and promotion. Vide Standing Order 06/20014 dated 23 February 2001 issued by the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force5, under the subject “Introduction of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for Promotion to Assistant Commandant”, LDCE was introduced as a mode of recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant in the CRPF. Clause 3(e)(viii) of SO 06/2001 read thus:

“viii) SENIORITY

Personnel recruited through LDCE will be treated as part of promotion quota and their seniority will be with reference to the date of selection as per DOPT OM No. 22011/5/76 Estt D dated 24.6.78. Within the candidates selected through LDCE, the inter se seniority will be as per their position in the merit list of LDCE.”

3.2 The 2003 RRs

The 2003 RRs of the SSB, therefore, envisaged three modes of recruitment for the post of AC, i.e. 50% by direct recruitment, 33% by promotion and 17% by LDCE. The preamble to the 2003 RRs, and Rule 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3)(i) to (iv) thereof, which alone are relevant for our purpose, read thus:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (i) read with clause (b) of Sub- section (2) of Section 18 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (66 of 1949) the Central Government hereby makes the following rules regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant Group ‘A’ (General Duty) posts in the Special Service Bureau, namely: –

*****

8. Seniority: –

(1) All Officers holding a higher rank shall be senior to 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: –

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

(ii) Inter se seniority of direct recruits shall be determined by adding together the marks obtained by them in recruitment test, the Foundation Course, and the Basic Professional Courses in the ratio of 50:10:40.

(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 in 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.

3.3 The 2010 RRs

The 2003 RRs were superseded, to the extent stated therein, by the Sahastra Seema Bal Assistant Commandant Group ‘A’ (General Duty) Combatised post Recruitment Rules, 20106, which were promulgated on 25 August 2010 and came into force

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