Allahabad High Court
Union Of India Thru. Secy. Minisrty Of ... vs Prashant Kumar Rai And 3 Others on 29 April, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33514-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 73 of 2024 Appellant :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Minisrty Of Home Affairs Central Sectt. And 4 Others Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Rai And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- Pratyush Tripathi,Alok Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
(1) Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
(2) Heard Shri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants- Union of India and Shri Alok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(3) This is a special appeal filed by Union of India and its authorities, challenging the judgment of the writ Court dated 29.03.2023 passed in Writ-A No.16632 of 2019.
(4) The writ Court has allowed the writ petition of the respondent No.1 claiming seniority with the 42nd batch of trainees with reference to Central Reserve Police Force Group A (General Duty) Officer Recruitment Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2001") and in doing so it has relied upon a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Niraj Kumar vs. Union of India and others rendered in Writ Petition (C) No.6506 of 2016 decided on 20.03.2019.
(5) Relevant extract of the writ Court judgment containing the reasons in support of its conclusion are as under :
"Rule 8 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 2001 and the Standing Order of 2009 are to be read in harmony and in consonance. Inter-se the seniority of Direct Recruits (Assistant Commandant) is to be determined on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and marks obtained during training in the academy. The department has treated the petitioner to be an appointee of 42nd Batch, however, marks obtained by him in 43rd Batch training have been added and he has been placed amongst the Direct Recruits (Assistant Commandant) of 43rd Batch.
I am of the view that this interpretation of C.R.P.F. Rules, 2001 and Standing Order of 2009 would run contrary to the express provisions of Rule 8 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 2001. Once the petitioner was treated to be appointee of Direct Recruits of 42nd Batch, his seniority cannot be fixed amongst the Direct Recruits of 43rd Batch merely on the ground that he could complete the training with 43rd Batch appointees.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I allow this petition and the impugned orders so far fixing the seniority of the petitioner in 43rd Batch are set aside. The respondents are directed to assign the seniority of 42nd Batch to the petitioner, keeping him at the bottom of 42nd Batch. "
(6) Against the aforesaid backdrop, we may mention the relevant facts in brief.
(7) The respondent No.1 was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as "C.R.P.F.") in pursuance to an examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.S.C.") on 24.09.2009. An offer of appointment was issued to the respondent No.1 on 02.04.2010 to report at C.R.P.F. Academy, Gurgaon on or before 15.05.2010 to undergo training with the 42nd batch. The respondent No.1 joined training on 03.06.2010. While undergoing training, respondent No.1 was diagnosed with tuberculosis in right cervical region and missed training for more than thirty days, therefore, he requested for being allowed to undergo training in the succeeding batch i.e. the 43rd batch. This request was made by him on 13.07.2010. His request was accepted by the competent authority on 31.08.2010 and he was relegated to the next batch i.e. 43rd batch on medical grounds. He stood relieved from basic training of 42nd batch on 31.08.2010. On 01.09.2010, notification was issued for appointment of the selected candidates including the name of the petitioner at Sl. No.42 mentioning his date of joining as 03.06.2010 that is the date when he joined the training with the 42nd batch. In pursuance to the permission granted on 31.08.2010, the respondent No.1 was called to undergo basic training with the 43rd batch and for reporting on or before 12.10.2011. After reporting, he completed his training successfully with the 43rd batch on 09.11.2012.
(8) A seniority list dated 21.05.2013 was circulated containing the names of 43rd batch trainees wherein the respondent No.1 was placed at Sl. No.9. Thereafter, a gradation list dated 31.07.2018 of Assistant Commandants was published wherein the respondent No.1 was placed at Sl. No.406. Needless to say that the seniority list mentioned earlier contained the name of only those trainees who were part of the 43rd batch and had trained with them but the gradation list contained the names of all the Assistant Commandants in service. It is the claim of respondent No.1 that it is then that he came to know that he had not been given seniority with the 42nd batch but with the 43rd batch. Although, it is the case of the appellants that the seniority list dated 21.05.2013 had been ordered to be circulated to the concerned officials but we do not enter into this issues as to whether the same was actually circulated and given to the respondent No.1 or not. The fact of the matter is that a representation was filed by the respondent No.1 on 12.04.2019 claiming seniority with the 42nd batch mentioning therein, the Standing Order No.1 of 2009 dated 12.01.2019.
(9) Prior to it one Niraj Kumar whose training got delayed on account of delay in verification of document etc. filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court bearing Writ Petition No. 6506 (C) of 2016, claiming seniority with the 42nd batch for which he was selected and this petition was allowed on 29.03.2019.
(10) The respondent No.1 herein ultimately filed a writ petition i.e. Writ-A No.16632 of 2019 challenging the seniority list dated 21.05.2013 and gradation list dated 31.07.2018 before this Court at Lucknow. Presumably, he filed this petition on the strength of decision passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Niraj Kumar (supra) and certain other cases filed by person similarly situated to Niraj Kumar. Prior to it, he did not raise any grievance. On 03.10.2022, the period from 01.09.2010 to 10.10.2011, during which the respondent No.1 was under treatment and could not complete the training with the 42nd batch, was treated as extraordinary leave without medical certificate and was to be counted for annual increment and pension but the said order did not mention that it was also to be counted for the purposes of seniority.
(11) Now the aforesaid writ petition i.e. Writ-A No. 16632 of 2019 has been decided by the impugned judgment and the validity of judgment is questioned before us by the appellants.
(12) In this context, we may mention that C.R.P.F. has been constituted under a central enactment known as The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1949"). Section 18 of the said Act empowers the Central Government to make rules regulating the classes and grades, pay, pension and other remuneration of members of the force, and their condition of service in the force. In exercise of the aforesaid powers, Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Rule, 1955") were made and published in the gazette on 24.02.1955. Rule 4 of the said Rules, 1955 under the heading "General Powers of Certain Officers" which is part of Chapter II Reads as under :
"4. Powers of the Central Government and Certain Officers of the Force .-- [(a) In all cases not specifically provided for in these rules, instructions issued from time to time by the Central Government or the Director-General or under his directions by the Additional Director-General or the Inspector-General shall regulate working of the Force.]"
(13) As per Rule 8(b)(ii) of the Rules, 1955, the inter-se seniority of direct recruits to the C.R.P.F. in the rank of Company Commander etc. shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by them before the selection board and at the passing out examinations conducted after their basic training at the C.R.P.F., Internal Security Academy. Now this post of Company Commander has subsequently being designated as Assistant Commandant vide circular dated 30.07.1991 and is to be treated as such pending amendment in the rules. The said circular is on record.
(14) After coming into force of the aforesaid Rules, 1955, another set of rules known as Rules, 2001 were framed by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Act, 1949 regulating the matter of recruitment to Group A post in the C.R.P.F. and they came into effect from 29.09.2001 and notification in this regard has been placed by the counsel for the respondent No.1 which is taken on record. Rule 8 of the Said Rules, 2001 pertains to seniority and the same reads as under :
"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 namely :-
(i) Seniority of officers promoted on the same day shall be determined in the order in which they are selected for promotion to that rank. (ii) Seniority of direct entrants shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by them before the selection board and at the passing out examination conducted at the Internal Security Academy. (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 subsequently 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;
Provided that in case of direct entrants, the year of determination of results shall be the year of seniority. Inter se-seniority of the directly recruited ACs and promotees will be decided as per orders of DOP & T issued from time to time.
(v) Seniority of re-employed officers in a particular rank shall be determined from the date of their re-employment in that rank. (vi) A serving Army officer shall maintained his seniority as between himself and other Army Officers within a particular rank and a serving officer of the Indian Police Service shall maintained his seniority as between himself and other officers of the Indian Police Service within particular rank."
(15) As would be evident from a bare reading of Rule 8 of the Rules, 2001, it does not envisage a situation where a candidate who has been selected for the post of Assistant Commandant joins the training with his batch but is unable to complete it on account of various grounds and, therefore, makes a request for being permitted to undergo the training with the next batch and on completion thereof how his seniority would be determined. Faced with this anomaly, the matter was processed by the appellants herein as is evident from the file noting which has been brought on record along with Supplementary affidavit which has been filed today. However, in these noting, though we do not find any mention about the aforesaid situation, we do find that there is a consideration of situations which are not covered by the aforesaid Rules, 2001 and Rules, 1955 and, therefore, remedial measures to be taken accordingly and draft Standing Order had been prepared for approval of Ministry of Home Affairs which ultimately were approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs and ultimately these Standing Order fructified in the form of Standing Order No.1 of 2009, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. It is necessary to quote the entire Standing Order. The same reads as under :-
" DIRECTORATE GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLCE FORCE CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI -110003 (Ministry of Home Affairs) No. A.VI-1/2008 Pers-I (AC) Dated, the 12 January'2009 STANDING ORDER NO. 01/2009 Subject:- Fixation of seniority and inter-se-seniority of directly appointed Assistant Commandants and DEGOs in CRPF.
The recruitment of Assistant Commandants in CRPF is by the following methods :-
by direct recruitment through competitive examination by UPSC for 50% posts, including 10% posts for re-employed Short Service Commissioned Officers selected through interview. by local promotion from eligible Inspectors/SMs in the Force, after DPC for 33% posts. by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination from SI/Inspectors of Force for 17% posts. This LDCE has been introduced in the Force w.e.f. 23.02.2001 (S.O. 06/2001).
02. Rule 8(b)(ii) of "CRPF Rules, 1955" provides that the inter-se seniority of directly recruited AC shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained by them before the selection board and at the passing out examination conducted after their basic training at the CRPF Academy.
03. There remains some grey area which needs to be clarified to regulate the seniority of Assistant Commandants. Accordingly, following guidelines are issued with immediate effect :-
Seniority of directly appointed Gazetted Officers through UPSC and direct entry Gazetted Officers (LDCE quota) shall be reckoned with reference to their batch of Training from the date of appointment, irrespective of the batch in which they were selected. Date of appointment in respect of Directly Appointed Gazetted officers through UPSC shall ordinarily mean the date of commencement of training, unless the candidate had reported late but within 30 days of commencement of training.
Within a batch of training, whether directly appointed or through LDCE, the inter- se-seniority shall be determined as per Rule 8(b)(ii) of "CRPF Rules, 1955" in the order of merit. Merit shall mean the aggregate of marks obtained at the time of selection and the marks obtained at the time of passing out examination at CRPF Academy.
Not withstanding any thing contained in paras i) and ii) above, within a Batch of training, a person selected earlier but who could not join the training with his batch due to administrative reasons e.g. delay in verification of character and antecedents, shall be senior to a person selected in a subsequent selection process. Inter se seniority among officers of each year of selection will be decided in the order of merit and placed accordingly en bloc at the top of the batch in which such candidates undergo training.
As far as directly appointed gazetted officers through UPSC are concerned, a candidate who is successful and is allotted to the Force for appointment shall, on receipt of intimation to that effect, submit an undertaking to report for the training programme scheduled the earliest or otherwise. If he exercises the former option, his failure to report for the training programme will automatically result in cancellation of the offer of appointment.
A candidate selected through UPSC shall be allowed to join a batch of training within a month from the date of commencement of training without loss of seniority. Provided further that the candidate reporting after commencement of the basic training, but within 30 days from the date of commencement of such training, shall furnish sufficient proof to the effect that such late reporting is for reasons beyond his control and is not attributable to individual negligence/laxity or for reasons that are purely personal in nature.
Similarly, a trainee Officer who misses the training for more than 30 days for any reason shall forfeit his claim to inter se seniority amongst that batch. His inclusion in the subsequent batch on account of failure, relegation, absence etc., shall depend on the recommendation of the Principal of the Academy.
The principle as stipulated vide Paras (i) (ii) & (iii) above in respect of candidates selected through UPSC shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to such candidates who could not join the training programme having been declared temporary unfit/unfit and are declared fit subsequently by a re medical/review medical board as well to such trainees who were relegated from the previous batch on medical grounds. Such candidates shall be permitted to join or rejoin the subsequent batch of training, as the case may be, only if their fitness is certified by the competent medical authority of the Force and such certificate not being more than an year old.
A candidate selected through UPSC, for any valid ground, can seek extension to undergo training in the next batch of training and if so permitted by the competent authority, shall forfeit his seniority and not-withstanding anything stated in the preceding paras, shall be placed at the bottom of the batch with whom he undergoes the training No extension in joining the force shall be granted exceeding one year or till the next batch of basic training, which ever is later. Such candidate shall be liable to undergo medical examination afresh to be carried out by the competent medical authority of the Force to be notified by CRPF Academy before joining, if the period exceeds one year from the previous medical examination.
Not withstanding anything contained in the preceding paras seniority of Short Service Commissioned Officers shall be reckoned from the date of their joining/appointment.
Hindi Version will follow.
Authy:- This issues with the concurrence of GOI, MHA vide their UO No. E.281/ Dir (E-I)108 dated 5/1/2009.
Sd/- 12/1/2009 (V.K.Joshi) DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF No. A.VI-1/2008 Pers-I (AC) Dated, the January'2009 Copy forwarded to:-
The Addl. DG, NWZ& East Zone CRPF.
All Sector IsGP(Including Ops IsG/RAF/SAF) CRPF and Director/IGP ISA.
All Range DIsGP, CRPF, Including Ops DisGP/RAF/SAF All DisGP, GC, cRPF, indluding SWS.CWS/Principal CTCs & RTCs All Commandants including Signal BNs CRPF.
Sd/- 12/1/2009 (Ramesh Chandra) DIG (Pers)"
(16) This Standing Order is referable to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1955 which in turn have been made under Section 18 of the Act, 1949, therefore, the Standing Order does have statutory force and in any case this is the Standing Order which has held the field and has been applied by the appellants herein for determining the seniority of personnel who were covered by it.
(17) Now when we peruse the said Standing Order, what we find is that seniority of directly appointed Gazetted Officer through U.P.S.C. shall be reckoned with reference to their batch of training from the date of appointment, irrespective of the batch in which they were selected. The term 'date of appointment' has been further clarified in respect of directly appointed Gazetted Officers through U.P.S.C. to ordinarily mean the date of commencement of training, unless the candidate has reported late but within thirty days of commencement of training. Now this stipulation is contained in Para 3(i). Though the figure (i) is not specifically mentioned in the copy of the said order which is on record but it appears to be so from the succeeding paragraphs.
(18) Now sub para (ii) of para 3 goes on to state that within a batch of training, whether directly appointed or through LDCE which is a reference to direct entry Gazetted Officers, the inter-se seniority shall be determined as per Rule 8(b)(ii) of Rules, 1955 in the order of merit, meaning thereby, the trainees of the same batch, there seniority should be based on merits. Now how the merit is to be ascertained is also mentioned in the succeeding line which says that merits shall mean the aggregate marks obtained at the time of selection and the marks obtained at the time of passing out examination at C.R.P.F. Academy which is a reference to the basic training, therefore, not only the training should have commenced but it should also have been completed.
(19) Thereafter, sub para (iii) is there, which says notwithstanding anything contained in paras (i) and (ii) above, within a batch of training, a person selected earlier but who could not join the training within his batch due to administrative reasons e.g. delay in verification of character and antecedents, shall be senior to a person selected in a subsequent selection process. Now this caters to a situation where a candidate is entitled to be sent to training but is not so sent on account of there being delay in verification of character and antecedents. Therefore, this provision is not applicable in the case at hand.
(20) One of the succeeding paragraphs provides that a candidate selected though U.P.S.C. shall be allowed to join batch within a month from date of commencement of training without loss of seniority, meaning thereby, if a candidate joins belatedly but within thirty days of commencement of training then he will not loose seniority. This is a clarification of the condition imposed by sub para (i) and (iii) of para 3. The said paragraphs further go on to say that provided further that the candidate reporting after commencement of basic training but within thirty days from the date of commencement of such training, shall furnish sufficient proof to the effect that such late reporting is for reasons beyond his control and is not attributable to individual negligence/laxity of a reasons that are purely personal in nature. Now this does not have much relevance to the facts of the case at hand but the same has been mentioned only to clarify the rule position.
(21) The succeeding paragraph goes on to state that similarly, a trainee Officer who misses the training for more than thirty days for any reason shall forfeit his claim to inter-se seniority amongst that batch. His inclusion in the subsequent batch on account of failure, relegation, absence etc. shall depend on the recommendation of the Principal of the Academy. Now this paragraph caters to a situation where the candidate has not joined for a period of more than thirty days from the date of joining, therefore, this is also not very relevant, as in this case, the respondent No.1 had, in fact, joined training on 03.06.2010 with the 42nd batch.
(22) Now, it is the next two paragraphs which are relevant, in view of the stipulation contained therein - "The principle as stipulated vide para 3(i), (ii) and (iii) above in respect of candidates selected through U.P.S.C. shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to such candidate who could not join the training programme having been declared temporarily unfit/unfit and are declared fit subsequently by the re-medical/review medical board as well to such trainees who were relegated from the previous batch on medical grounds. Such candidates shall be permitted to join or rejoin the subsequent batch of training, as the case may be, only if their fitness is certified by the competent medical authority of the Force and such certificate is not being more than an year old." Now under this provision, the respondent No.1 was permitted to join/rejoin the subsequent batch of training on 31.10.2010 and in pursuance thereof, he was called to join the training with the 43rd batch on 21.09.2011 and joined on 12.10.2011, therefore, Paras 3(i), (ii) and (iii) apply for determination of his seniority.
(23) Para 3(iii), very categorically provides that in cases where candidates are not able to join the training on account of administrative reasons e.g. delay in verification of character and antecedents, shall be senior to a person selected in a subsequent selection process, however, it further goes on to say that inter-se seniority amongst officers of each year of selection will be decided in the order of merit and placed accordingly en bloc at the top of the batch in which such candidates undergo training, meaning thereby, training in the subsequent batch, where they will be placed en bloc at the top. Now this principle is to apply in the case of trainees who were relegated from the previous batch on medical grounds such as the respondent No.1 in view of the recitals in the succeeding paragraphs noticed hereinabove. The respondent No.1 joined the training with 42nd batch but was relegated to the subsequent batch on medical ground, therefore, he has to be placed at the top of the 43rd batch as per the stipulation contained in Standing Order because his seniority with the earlier batch i.e. 42nd batch shall stand forfeited.
(24) The Standing Order further goes on to state, in continuation of the earlier paragraph, that a candidate selected through U.P.S.C., for any valid ground, can seek extension to undergo training in the next batch of training and if so permitted by the competent authority, shall forfeit his seniority and notwithstanding anything stated in the preceding paras, shall be placed at the bottom of the batch with whom he undergoes the training. This provision will apply where without joining extension has been sought to undergo training with next batch and is not applicable to the case at hand.
(25) Learned Single Judge has not adverted to the Standing Orders while give his reasons for arriving at the conclusion ultimately arrived at by him.
(26) At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants informed that the persons placed at Sl. No.1 to 10 in the seniority list dated 21.05.2013 are persons of the 42nd batch who could not complete the training and were relegated to 43rd batch and therefore, the respondent No.1 was placed at Sl. No.9 based on his inter-se merit with those candidates. There is no discussion as to these aspects of the Standing Order No.1 of 2009 by the writ Court and the writ petition has been decided cursorily relying upon Rule 8 of Rules, 2001 failing to take note of the fact that Standing Orders are referable to Rule 4 of Rule, 1955 which have not be superseded or rescinded, therefore, on a harmonious reading and construction of all the rules and Standing Order together, the legal position is as discussed hereinabove. Standing Order caters to situations which are not covered by rules, such as the one relating to the respondent, an aspect which has been missed out by the learned Single Judge.
(27) As regards the contention of counsel for the respondent No.1 that the services from 01.09.2010 to 10.10.2011 have been regularized vide order dated 03.10.2022. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that they have been regularized only for the purposes of annual increment and pension and has been treated as extraordinary leave without medical certificate but this does not entail assignment of seniority for the simple reason, seniority affects the rights of other candidates, as it is the basis for grant of various benefits including promotion.
(28) As regards reliance placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Niraj Kumar (supra) and the dismissal of Special Leave Petition against the said judgment at the S.L.P. stage on 07.09.2022 and the reliance placed on another judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (C) No.8018 of 2019 decided on 18.12.2019. We do not find any discussion of the relevant rules and Standing Order as has been done by us therein, no doubt the aforesaid benefit has been granted by the Delhi High to trainees of the 42nd batch who could not complete the training with the 42nd batch and ultimately completed his training with the 43rd batch and were placed between Sl. No.1 to 10 in the seniority list of 43rd batch along with the respondent No.1 herein but our difficulty is that none of the said judgments has taken into consideration the Standing Order which we have discussed in extenso and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition against one of such judgment at the S.L.P. stage itself only means that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and it does not constitute a precedent for us.
(29) While we can understand the feelings of the respondent No.1 but faced with the legal position as discussed hereinabove, we are unable to grant parity to him based on the said decisions of the Delhi High Court.
(30) Moreover, the Standing Order No. 1 of 2009 has not been challenged by the respondent No.1.
(31) We also take note of the fact that even in the Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Anjan Kumar Mandal vs. Union of India and others, passed in Writ Petition (C) No.8546 of 2016 decided on 28.11.2017, the Standing Order No.1 of 2009 has nowhere been referred, much less discussed, therefore, the said decision also does not persuade us to change our view. Same is the case with the Division Bench judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of M.V. Sheshagiri vs. Union of India and others and K. Bhaskar Rao vs. Union of India and others, passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 6275 of 2016, (C) No.6312 of 2016 decided on 06.12.2018, AIRONINE 2018 DEL 2679, all of which have been referred by the Delhi High in the subsequent judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Singh (supra).
(32) It is also informed by learned counsel for the appellants that the Standing Order No.1 of 2009 has been adopted in the rules subsequently made in 2010 which have been framed superseding the earlier rules. Although, in this case, considering the facts, it is the earlier rules and Standing Order No.1 of 2009 which are applicable.
(33) For all the reasons discussed above, we cannot sustain the judgment of the writ Court dated 29.03.2023 passed in Writ-A No.16632 of 2019 and accordingly set aside the same. The special appeal is allowed accordingly.
(34) The Director General, C.R.P.F. is directed to circulate this judgment to all the subordinate offices so that there is no disparity/discrimination while determining seniority and the Rules are followed uniformly.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]
Order Date :- 29.4.2024
Shubhankar