CASE NAME: Jai Mangal Rai v. Union of India and Ors.
CASE NUMBER: W.P.(C) 84/2019
COURT: High Court of Delhi
DATE: 5th January 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar, Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Singh and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Digpaul
FACTS
Seventeen petitioners applied for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organizations through the Staff Selection Commission in 2002. All the petitioners have cleared the written examination conducted on 12th January 2003 and the subsequent Physical Efficiency Test on 26th March 2003. However, during medical examination on 9 June 2003, all were declared medically unfit, primarily due to cavities and other medical conditions. The petitioners subsequently appealed for Review Medical Board examination. Due to considerable administrative delays, the RMB examinations were scheduled and conducted between late 2003 and early 2004. Upon being declared fit by the RMB, the petitioners were appointed as Sub-Inspectors between March 2004 and January 2005. In the interim period, their batchmates who had not been medically disqualified were appointed and joined service between 2003 and 2004. The petitioners sought seniority along with those who had participated in the same selection process, contending that the delay in their appointment was attributable to the respondents and not to any fault of their own.
ISSUES
- Whether petitioners delayed in joining due to medical review procedures should be granted seniority with candidates who participated in identical selection but joined earlier.
- Whether Rule 8(2) of the BSF General Duty Cadre (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2002 applies exclusively to promotions or to all appointments.
- Whether Rule 8(3) of the 2002 Rules, providing merit-based seniority for direct recruits, operates independently of Rule 8(2) or is subject to it.
- Whether administrative delays in medical verification can override the statutory seniority provisions.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Rule 8 of the BSF General Duty Cadre (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2002, governing determination of seniority among Sub-Inspectors.
- Rule 8(2) provides that seniority shall be determined on the basis of continuous regular appointment in that rank.
- Rule 8(3) provides that seniority of direct entry Sub-Inspectors shall be determined in accordance with merit of selection, subject to Rule 8(2).
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONERS:
The petitioners contended that they should be granted seniority with candidates from their selection batch who had joined earlier. They argued that the delay in their joining was not attributable to them but to administrative and medical procedural delays. They relied upon earlier Delhi High Court decisions in Ram Pal Deswal v Union of India WP (C) 393/2008, Naveen Kumar Jha v Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5606 (DB), and Avinash Singh v Union of India(2011 SCC OnLine Del 2432 (DB) all of which had favored granting seniority with the original batch. They emphasized that merit-based seniority under Rule 8(3) should prevail over mechanical date-of-appointment criteria.
RESPONDENTS:
The counsel on behalf of respondents have contended that Rule 8 (2) manages seniority based on continuous regular appointment and that petitioners’ continuous regular appointment commenced only from the date they join service. They relied upon an earlier Division bench decision in Shoorvir Singh Negi v Union of India MANU/DE/3865/2015 (DB) which rejected merit- based seniority claims in such corresponding circumstances.
ANALYSIS
The three-judge bench took into consideration several conflicting Division bench decisions and clarified on the applicable legal principles. Hon’ble Justice Hari Shankar opined that Rule 8(2) applies to all appointments such as direct appointments, promotions and all other modes of recruitment. The Bench rejected the interpretation of this provision adopted in Ram Pal Deswal v Union of India (2011) SCC OnLine Del 5606 (DB) which attempted to restrict Rule 8(2) to promotions alone and Rule (3) to direct recruitment. The Court held that such interpretation violated fundamental principles of statutory construction which firmly believe that provide who cannot be used to restrict the scope of the main provision. The phrase “continuous regular appointment in the rank” in Rule 8(2) necessarily refers to the actual date where an appointee commences service in the rank. The Bench further determined that Rule 8(3), concerning merit-based seniority, operates only where candidates appointed in the same selection process join simultaneously. Where joining dates differ, Rule 8(2) applies, placing those who joined later in junior seniority positions.
JUDGMENT
The High Court dismissed all seventeen writ petitions with no order as to costs. The court held that petitioners cannot claim seniority with candidates who participated in the same selection but joined earlier. The Larger Bench answered the preferred issue by stating that “Seniority among direct recruit Sub-Inspectors is fixed on the date of actual appointment and joining of service, not on the date of selection”. Where candidates who were selected in the same batch are appointed on different dates, those who were appointed and joined later are ranked junior, as compared to those appointed and joined earlier regardless of the reason for delay.
CONCLUSION
This judgment represents a landmark clarification of Indian civil service recruitment jurisprudence. The bench passed a decision by unifying the conflict in the presidency by establishing that statutory seniority rules must be applied mechanically based on appointment and joining dates. While approaching the predicament of petitioners’ with sympathy, the court determined that the legal framework does not differentiate between the delays attributable to administrative error and those attributable to procedural requirements. This judgement upholds that administrative justice must be sought through administrative rather than judicial discretion for determination of seniority. The decision ensures consistency and predictability in seniority determination across all Central Police Organizations and establishes that legislative language must be construed according to its plain meaning without judicial rewriting.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: KRISHNA KOUSHIK
