Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – ss.2(d), 5 – Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 – rr.8(e),12 – Direct recruits-Sub Inspector (General Duty) were appointed in pursuance of the advertisement published in June, 2007 – Results were declared – On October 5, 2009, the Directorate General, CRPF communicated to its various units regarding the allotment of candidates – Pursuant thereto, letters of offer of appointment were issued to the selected candidates – Following the terms and conditions in the letter of appointment, the direct recruits reported for training in January, 2010 – On the other hand, promotee Sub Inspector (General Duty) were appointed in pursuance of recruitment process initiated in June, 2009 – Promotee Sub Inspectors (General Duty) training commenced on November 23, 2009 – After appointments were made, Seniority list was finalised, whereby the direct recruits were placed senior to the promotee sub-inspectors – Writ petition – High Court placed promotee Sub Inspector senior to the direct recruit Sub Inspectors – Direct recruits contended that they were entitled to rank senior in view of letter of allotment dated October 5, 2009 – On appeal, held: The offer of letter of appointment accepted by the direct recruit contemplated that on joining, they would be governed by the Act and the Rules, therefore, till such time they join in pursuance of the offer of appointment, the appellants-direct appointees were not subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules – As per r.12, no candidate was to be enrolled unless he obtained a Health Certificate – Therefore, candidates deemed to be member of the force only on furnishing of health certificate and acceptance of the offer of appointment before they proceed for training – Further, r.8(e) stipulates that a person promoted to a higher rank and a person recruited direct to the same rank shall have their seniority from the date of appointment – Therefore, a person appointed by way of direct recruitment or promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector, his seniority will be fixed as per the date of appointment – In the instant case, since the date of appointment of the direct recruits is not October 5, 2009 but the date they completed the formalities after accepting the offer of appointment, their date of appointment is later than the date of promotion of the promotee Sub-Inspectors – Thus, set of appeals by the direct appointee-Sub-Inspectors and Union of India dismissed – Service Law – Seniority.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The letter dated October 5, 2009 is not addressed to the appellants- direct recruits. It is addressed to Inspector General of Police of the various units of CRPF. By such communication, the selected candidates have been allotted to various units to facilitate issue of letter of appointment by the respective units. Some of the appellants were given letter of appointment on October 15, 2009 whereas appellant No. 1 have been given letter of appointment on October 26, 2009. This is a letter of offer of appointment which is required to be accepted by the candidates in terms of clause 4 as reproduced above. The offer of letter of appointment further contemplates that on joining, they would be governed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, therefore, till such time they join in pursuance of the offer of appointment, the appellants are not subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. As per Rule 12 of the Rules no candidate shall be enrolled unless he obtains a Health Certificate in the prescribed form. The Health Certificate was called upon from the appellants in the letter of offer of appointment. Therefore, they will be deemed to be members of the Force only on furnishing of Health Certificate and acceptance of the offer of appointment before they proceed for training. [Para 19][762-B-E-]
2. The judgment in Rohitash Kumar relied upon by the High Court is not applicable to the members of the CRPF as the date of appointment is not the date of commencement of training in the Rules. The BSF Rules are materially different from the Rules applicable to the members of CRPF. Rule 8(e) of the Rules clearly stipulates that a person promoted to a higher rank and a person recruited direct to the same rank shall have their seniority from the date of appointment. Therefore, a person appointed by way of direct recruitment or promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, his seniority will be fixed as per the date of appointment. Only in the case that both direct recruits and promotees are appointed on the same date, promotees were to rank senior. Since, the date of appointment is not 5th October, 2009 but the date they completed the formalities after accepting the offer of appointment, their date of appointment is later than the date of promotion of the promotee sub-inspectors. There is no merit in the present set of appeals. The same are dismissed but for the reasons other than that which weighed with the High Court. [Paras 20, 24][762-F-H; 736-A; 764-B]
Rohitash Kumar & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 451 : [2012] 13 SCR 47 – referred to. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia (Dr.) v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1975) 3 SCC 503 : [1975] 3 SCR 82; Union of India & Ors. v. N.R. Parmar & Ors. (2012) 13 SCC 340 : [2012] 13 SCR 555; P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors. v. U. Govinda Rao & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 693 : [2013] 13 SCR 540 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.