The Delhi High Court’s full bench ruled that candidates delayed in joining the Border Security Force due to medical reviews cannot claim seniority over those who joined earlier. This decision hinges on “continuous regular appointment” per Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules.
NEW DELHI: A full bench of the Delhi High Court has determined that candidates whose induction into the Border Security Force (BSF) was delayed due to review medical examinations do not have the right to claim seniority over those who joined earlier, even if the postponement was beyond their control.
The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices C Hari Shankar, Jyoti Singh, and Ajay Digpaul, clarified that Rule 8 of the BSF General Duty Cadre (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2002, establishes “continuous regular appointment” as the sole criterion for determining seniority.
This means that seniority is based on the actual date an officer begins service, not on the date of selection or medical clearance.
The Court rejected the argument that Rule 8(3), which associates the seniority of direct recruits with their merit ranking, could supersede Rule 8(2).
It emphasized that Rule 8(3) is explicitly subordinate to Rule 8(2) and is applicable only when appointments occur on the same date. In cases where appointments are staggered, seniority must reflect the actual date of appointment, the bench asserted.
The Court stated:
“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.”
As a result, the bench dismissed a series of petitions filed by BSF Sub-Inspectors who were selected through the Staff Selection Commission during 2002–03.
These petitioners sought to obtain seniority from the date their fellow batchmates joined, arguing that the delays caused by Review Medical Examinations (RMEs) unfairly penalized them.
The issue had previously been examined by a Division Bench. Due to conflicting judicial views on the matter, it was referred to a full bench for a definitive resolution.
The full bench concurred with the precedent established in Shoorvir Singh Negi and deviated from the reasoning adopted in Ram Pal Deswal.
Advocate Ankur Chhibber represented the petitioners, while Central Government Standing Counsel Farman Ali, along with Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Subhash Tanwar, Manish Mohan, and several other lawyers, represented the respondents.
Case Title: Jai Mangal Rai v Union of India and Ors
Read Attachment: