Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In the present writ petition, the seniority list of Assistant Commandants in the Sashastra Seema Bal (the respondent), issued on 25.11.2011 has been challenged.

2. The Special Service Bureau [now Sashastra Seema Bal or "SSB"] was W.P.(C) 7939/2012 Page 1 set up in the year 1963 under the Cabinet Secretariat. In January 2001, the Administrative Control of the Force was transferred from the Cabinet Secretariat, to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules, 1955 as amended from time to time were applicable to Battalions of SSB. Since the CRPF Act and Rules were applicable to SSB since inception, the post of Assistant Commandant was filled up in accordance with Rule 105 of CRPF Rules, 1955 i.e. by promotion, by direct recruitment and by deputation without any fixed percentage. From 6th November, 1986, the method of recruitment for the post of Assistant Commandant was subsequently amended in Rule 105 of CRPF Rule vide MHA notification by which appointment was to be i) By Direct recruitment: 50% ii) By promotion: 50% iii) Shortfall in direct recruitment or recruitment by promotion in the rank of Dy. SP (Coy Commander) could be filled by deputation or re-employment as classified in the rules. On 20.11.1996, the Cabinet Secretariat sought MHA‟s clarification with respect to norms for fixing inter se seniority as between direct recruits and promotees in the light of representations of 1987 and 1989 direct recruit Asst. Commandants.

9. It is stated that the MHA by letter dated 01.08.1997 clarified that the seniority of officers in CRPF is governed by Rule 8 (b) (ii) of CRPF Rules, 1955, which prescribes the criteria for fixation of seniority in the rank of Dy. S.P. [Coy Commander]:

i) The inter-se-seniority of direct recruits to Central Reserve Police Force in the rank of Coy Commander or Quarter Master or Assistant Principal, Central Training College 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 Internal Security Academy.

13. It was argued that the obligation of the SSB to follow the rules flows independently from the fact whether any officer demands adherence to it. The private respondents contested the fact that there was in fact no demand from other directly recruited officers to give weightage to the performance during training; they drew attention of the court to the representation of Neeraj Chand (dated 14thFebruary, 2009) and that of Shri P.S. Slaria (dated 03.07.2010), especially the latter, whereby the officer had stated that he joined SSB pursuant to an offer of appointment dated 23.07.1998 and had stood first in the Basic training course. Mr. Slaria, urged counsel, also had relied on a previous representation of 2003 which pointed out that his weightage during training was not taken into account according to Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules. This, it was argued, constituted sufficient reason to trigger a revision of the seniority list, which had in any case been directed by directions of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

14. It was submitted that wrongful placement in a seniority list, or the framing of a seniority list, contrary to rules or applicable legal principle, never confers any right to one not entitled to a particular position, especially if that slot or position is itself the result of illegality. Thus, that the petitioners occupied slots above the contesting respondents, (who were their W.P.(C) 7939/2012 Page 9 batch mates, having been similarly appointed in 1993) only on the basis of their UPSC performance, without giving weightage to marks obtained in the training period did not result in any equity, much less a right. It was submitted in this context, that petitioners were always aware that CRPF Rules were applicable. Thus, they cannot now complain about alleged wrongful placement in the seniority list. Dr. Harsh Pathak relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court, reported as Dhole GobindSahebrao&Ors v Union of India 2015 (6) SCC 727.