IMPORTANT POINT
Scope of Rule 3, Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.2001, passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in SWP No. 1393 of 1999, and judgment and order dated 1.8.2002 passed in LPA No. 275 of 2002.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are mentioned as under :

(A) The appellants and contestant respondents are Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as, `BSF’). The appellants and respondent nos. 4 and 5 are direct recruits, while respondent no.1 has been promoted against the quota of 10 per cent posts, that are reserved for Ministerial Cadre posts.

(B) The Union of India – respondent no.2, issued a seniority list dated 18.7.1995, placing respondent no. 1 at Serial No. 1863, below all the officers of Batch No.17 and thereafter, a final seniority list of Assistant Commandants was published on 5.7.1996.

(C) Respondent no.1 challenged the said seniority list in which he was ranked below the officers of Batch No. 17, by filing Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1999, on the ground that with effect from 15.3.1993, he stood promoted as Assistant Commandant, and that he had also completed all requisite training for the same at the B.S.F. Academy, Tekanpur, which had commenced on 1.2.1993. There was another batch that undertook training on 2.7.1993. However, the said officers of the second batch, who had joined such training on 2.7.1993, could not be ranked higher than him, in the seniority list.

(D) The said writ petition filed by respondent no.1, was contested by the Union of India. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.7.2001, wherein it was held that respondent no.1/petitioner therein, was, in fact, entitled to be ranked in seniority above the officers of Batch No.17, and below the officers of Batch No.16.

(E) The Union of India challenged the aforementioned impugned judgment and order dated 27.7.2001, by filing a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 1.8.2002.

(F) The appellants, though had not been impleaded as parties before the High Court, sought permission to file special leave petitions with respect to the said matter, and the same was granted by this Court. Hence, these appeals.

3. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that officers that are selected in response to a single advertisement, and through the same selection process, if have been given training in two separate batches, for administrative reasons i.e. police verification, medical examination etc., cannot be accorded different seniority by bifurcating them into two or more separate batches. The High Court therefore, committed an error by allowing the claim of respondent no.1, which opposed the seniority of the officers, for the reason that, if Batch Nos. 16 and 17 are taken together, the officers who, in terms of seniority, were placed at Serial No.5, would be moved to Serial No. 60, if treated separately. For instance, the person placed at Serial No. 8 had moved to Serial No. 62, and the one placed at Serial No. 11 had moved to Serial No. 64. Thus, such an act has materially adversely affected the seniority of officers even though they were duly selected in the same batch. The provisions of Rule 3 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the, `Rules 1978’), have been wrongly interpreted. The Statutory authorities have previously, always fixed seniority without taking note of the fact that training of officers was conducted in different batches. Thus, appeals deserve to be allowed.

4. Per contra, Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned ASG and Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5, have vehemently opposed the appeals, contending that the said Rule is not ambiguous in any m