Date of appointment, not selection, decides BSF Seniority: Delhi High Court

A full bench of the Delhi High Court has ruled that candidates whose appointment to the Border Security Force (BSF) was delayed due to medical re-examination cannot claim seniority over batchmates who joined earlier, even if the delay was not attributable to the candidates themselves [Jai Mangal Rai v Union of India and Ors]..A three-judge bench of Justices C Hari Shankar, Jyoti Singh and Ajay Digpaul ruled that according to Rule 8 of the BSF General Duty Cadre (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2002, seniority is governed by “continuous regular appointment”, meaning the date on which an officer is formally appointed and joins service, not the date of selection or medical clearance.It rejected the argument that Rule 8(3), which links seniority of direct recruits to merit in selection, could override Rule 8(2). It emphasised that Rule 8(3) is expressly subject to Rule 8(2) and applies only when candidates are appointed simultaneously. Where appointments occur on different dates, seniority must follow the order of appointment, the Court said.“Rule 8(3) cannot, in our view, apply as it is subject to Rule 8(2). Where Rule 8(2) applies, therefore, Rule 8(3) would not apply. In our view, and as has been held in Shoorvir Singh Negi, Rule 8(2) would apply both to direct recruitment and promotion. In the case of any appointment, therefore, whether by direct recruitment or promotion, seniority would have to be based on the date of appointment,” the Court held. .Therefore, the Court dismissed a batch of petitions filed by BSF Sub-Inspectors recruited through the Staff Selection Commission in 2002–03. The petitioners had sought seniority from the date their batchmates were appointed, arguing that delays caused by Review Medical Examinations (RMEs) unfairly disadvantaged them.A Division Bench had considered the plea earlier. However, noting the contrary views expressed by previous benches around the same issue, the question was referred to the three-judge full bench.The full bench concurred with the decision of the Division Bench in Shoorvir Singh Negi and differed with the views expressed in Ram Pal Deswal. .Advocate Ankur Chhibber appeared for the petitioners. Central Government Standing Counsel Farman Ali, Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Subhash Tanwar and Manish Mohan along with advocates Manish Kumar, Usha Jamnal, Kushagra Kumar, Amit Kumar Rana, Naveen, G Thavi Garg and Jatin Teotia appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.