Delay Due To Medical Review Can't Justify Ante-Dated Seniority Of BSF Candidates: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Full Bench has held that candidates appointed to the Border Security Force (BSF) after a delay caused by medical re-examination are not entitled to claim seniority over batchmates who joined the service earlier, even if the delay was not attributable to them.A three-judge Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar, Jyoti Singh and Ajay Digpaul thus settled the conflicting views taken by different Division Benches of the Court on the issue of seniority of direct recruits whose appointments were deferred due to medical review.It observed,“petitioners in these writ petitions cannot claim seniority along with the persons who participated in the selection along with them but joined earlier, as the joining of the petitioners was delayed owing to their having to undertake the RME. The fact that this delay may not have been attributable to the petitioners cannot affect the legal position. It is equally not attributable to the persons who joined before the petitioners.”The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions filed by BSF Sub-Inspector (GD) candidates who had participated in the same recruitment process but were initially declared medically unfit. Though they were later found fit by Review Medical Boards and appointed, their joining was delayed, compared to their batchmates.The petitioners sought ante-dated seniority on the ground that the delay in appointment occurred due to procedural lapses and medical review processes beyond their control. They argued that seniority should be fixed based on merit in the selection process rather than the date of appointment.Rejecting the claim, the Full Bench held that Rule 8 of the BSF General Duty Cadre (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2002 clearly provides that seniority in a rank is to be determined on the basis of “continuous regular appointment”, and not the date of selection.“If, among persons selected in one selection process, appointments did not take place at the same time, then, by virtue of Rule 8(2), those appointed later would be junior to those appointed earlier” it held.The Court further clarified that Rule 8(3), which speaks of determining seniority according to merit, is expressly subject to Rule 8(2). “It is only if all were appointed at the same time and, therefore, their dates of “continuous regular appointment” were the same, that, by operation of Rule 8(3), their inter se merit would determine their inter se seniority,” it said.The Full Bench approved the reasoning adopted in Shoorvir Singh Negi v. Union of India (2015) and overruled Ram Pal Deswal v. Union of India (2011) which confined Rule 8(2) only to promotions.Consequently, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions.Appearance: Appearance for the Petitioners: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. Appearance for the Respondents: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. for UOI Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana in WP(C) Nos. 104/2019 and 108/2019 Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. PC for UOI in WP(C) 84/2019, WP(C) 85/2019 & WP(C) 87/2019 Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Mr. Naveen and Ms. G Thavi Garg, Advocates for UOI in WP(C) 3448/2019 and 3427/2019 Mr. Manish Mohan CGSC and Mr. Jatin Teotia Adv. for UOI in WP(C) 108/2019Case title: Jai Mangal Rai v. UoI (and batch)Case no.: W.P.(C) 84/2019 (and batch)Click here to read order

Delay Due To Medical Review Can't Justify Ante-Dated Seniority Of BSF Candidates: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags