REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6642  OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 8136 OF 2019)

BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR. .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6643   OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 20593  OF 2019)

(DIARY NO. 25904 OF 2019)

J U D G M E N T

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1)  Leave granted.

2) The order passed by the High Court of Delhi on November 28, 2018 is  the  subject  matter  of  challenge  in  the  present  appeals,  one

preferred by the direct appointee Sub Inspectors (General Duty) of

the  Central  Reserve  Police  Force1 and  another  by  the  Union  of

India. The High Court ordered that the promotee Sub Inspectors

(General  Duty)  will  rank  senior  to  the  direct  appointee  Sub

Inspectors (General Duty) by quashing the order dated October 14,

2013  issued  by  the  Directorate  General  of  the  CRPF  and  the

seniority list dated February 27, 2012.   1  CRPF

1

3) The direct recruits were appointed in pursuance of advertisement published in June, 2007.  The result of the written examination was

declared  on  July  21,  2009.   It  was  on  October  5,  2009,  the

Directorate  General,  CRPF  communicated  to  its  various  units

regarding allotment of 880 candidates to its units. The candidates

were  allotted  to  the  units  as  per  vacancies.   The direction  was

issued to the Inspector Generals to issue offer of appointment  to

the candidates so allotted. One of the conditions in the said letter

of allotment reads, thus: -

“g)  Candidate  may  be  given  one-month  time  to  join CRPF from the date of  issue of  offer of  appointment, which should not be later than October 30, 2009 and should be sent by registered post with AD.”

4) It is in pursuance of such allotment, the selected candidates were issued the letters of offer of appointment. The offer of appointment

dated October 26, 2009 issued to Bobindra Kumar, appellant No. 1

has been put on record by the respondents.  The appellants have

produced letter of appointment dated October 15, 2009 in respect

of Ravinder Singh, one of the respondents in the High Court.  The

terms and conditions of  letter of  allotment are the same as are

mentioned in letter of appointment of appellant No. 1.  Some of the

clauses from such letter read as under:

“1.  It is to inform you that as a result of recruitment test  conducted  by  SSC-2007,  you  have  been provisionally  selected  for  appointment  to  the  post  of Sub  Inspector  (General  Duty)  in  CRPF  against  the existing vacancies (normal wastage) of M & N Sector.

2

xx xx xx

3 (b).  You shall be at liberty to resign your appointment before the expiry of first three months of your service provided  three  months  pay  or  training  charges whichever is higher is refunded.

xx xx xx

(e).  On joining the department, you will be governed by CRPF Act-1949 and CRPF Rules-1955 as amended from time to time.

xx xx xx

(g).  You will be required to undergo basic training as applicable for the post after reporting at this GC.

(h).  In case you do not report by the stipulated date as mentioned at Para 4, offer of appointment made to you will  be  deemed  to  be  lapsed  automatically  and  no correspondence  whatsoever  on  the  subject  will  be entertained.

xx xx xx

4.  If you accept the offer of appointment on the terms and conditions mentioned above, you should report for duty  in  the  DIGP,  GROUP  CENTRE,  CRPF,  LANGJING IMPHAL (Manipur)  795113 (Tel.  No.  0385-2436140) on or  before 26/11/2009 at  0900 Hrs.  with the following docuements….”

5) It  is  in  pursuance of  such terms and conditions  in  the  letter  of appointment,  the direct  recruits  reported for  training in  January,

2010.   On  the  other  hand,  the  respondents  who  were  the  writ

petitioners  before  the  High  Court  came  to  be  appointed  in

pursuance  of  recruitment  process  initiated  in  June,  2009.   The

result  of  examination  was  declared  on  October  20,  2009.   The

3

training commenced on November 23, 2009 as these candidates

were already members of the Force.   

6) After  the  appointments  so  made,  seniority  was  finalised  on February 27, 2012, whereby the direct recruits were placed senior

to the promotee sub-inspectors.

7) The  promotee  sub-inspectors challenged  the  seniority   placing the direct recruits senior to them, inter alia, on the ground

that  they  were  appointed  earlier  in  point  of  time  to  the  direct

recruits and, therefore, in terms of Rule 8(e) of the Central Reserve

Police Force Rules, 19552, the  promotees should  rank senior.  The

High  Court  accepted  the  claim  of  the  promotee  sub-inspectors

relying upon judgment of this Court in Rohitash Kumar & Ors. v.

Om Prakash Sharma & Ors.3 and also Office Memorandum dated

November 4,  1992;  and para 11.2(2)(iii)(e)  of  Chapter  XI  of  the

CRPF Establishment Manual.

8) Aggrieved  against  the  order  passed,  the  direct  recruits  and  the Union of India are in appeal.

9) Before  we  proceed  further,  Rule  8(e)  needs  to  be  reproduced, which reads as under:

“8.  Seniority. – (a) The seniority of Superior Officers shall be in the following order:-

(i)  xxx

xx xx xx

2  Rules 3  (2013) 11 SCC 451

4

(e).  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  to  that  rank subject to the condition that if both were appointed on the same date, the former (promotee) shall be senior:

Provided further that if the date of confirmation is the same  their  seniority  immediately  before  such confirmation shall remain unaffected.”

10) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General supported the seniority fixed relying upon the Office Memoranda dated June 24,

1978 and March 4, 2014.  It is argued that  the  direct recruits are

entitled  to  rank  senior  in  view  of  letter  of  allotment  dated  5th

October  2009  as  against  the  writ  petitioners  who  are  to  be

assigned seniority from the date of announcement of results.   It

was argued that seniority is to be determined according to rotation

of vacancies between the direct recruits and the promotees relying

upon Office Memorandum dated March 4, 2014.  It is further argued

that  Office  Memorandum  dated  November  4,  1992  has  no

applicability for determining of seniority of Sub Inspectors as such

Office  Memorandum contemplates  that  the  seniority  is  delinked

from confirmation.  Such is not the issue in the present case.  The

Standing Order No. 1 of 2009 relied upon by the High Court relates

to fixation of seniority in the cadre of Assistant Commandant in the

CRPF, thus no applicability to the determination of seniority in the

lower rank of sub-inspectors.

5

11) Mr. Nataraj referred to judgment of this Court in  Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia  (Dr.) v.  State  of  Punjab  &  Ors.4 to  contend  that

present  case  is  of  second  kind  of  order  of  appointment  of

appellants as held by this Court.  Therefore, the date of allotment

of the direct recruits to the units i.e. October 5, 2009 is the date of

appointment in view of the aforesaid judgment.  Learned counsel

referred to the following paragraph from Amarjit Singh, wherein,

this Court held as under:

“10.   …First  let  us  see  what  the  words  “date  of appointment” mean. Are they synonymous with “date of the order of appointment”? We think not. An order of appointment may be of three kinds. It may appoint a person with effect from the date he assumes charge of the post or it may appoint him with immediate effect or it  may  appoint  him  simpliciter  without  saying  as  to when  the  appointment  shall  take  effect.  Where  the order  of  appointment  is  of  the  first  kind,  the appointment would be effective only when the person appointed assumes charge of the post and that would be the date of his appointment. It would be then that he is appointed. But in a case of the second kind, which is the one with which we are concerned since the order dated April 8, 1964, appointed Respondents 3 to 19 to PCMS Class I “with immediate effect”, the appointment would be effective immediately irrespective as to when the person appointed assumes charge of the post. The date of his appointment in such a case would be the same as the date of the order of appointment...”

12) Mr. Nataraj also relied upon another judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. N.R. Parmar & Ors.5 to contend that date of appointment

would mean the date of first substantive appointment against the

clear  vacancy.   Since  the vacancies  in  the cadre were  available

when the direct recruits were allotted to different units, it is the 4  (1975) 3 SCC 503 5  (2012) 13 SCC 340

6

date of allotment which has been rightly taken into consideration to

fix the seniority.

13) Mr.  Dhruv  Mehta,  learned  senior counsel  for  the  direct  recruits submitted  that  date  of  allotment  is  the  date  of  appointment,

therefore,  the  appellants  having  been  appointed  on  October  5,

2009 were rightly assigned seniority as against the writ petitioners

who were appointed on October 20, 2009 in terms of Rule 8(e) of

the Rules.  He argued that the Standing Order No. 1 of 2009 cannot

be relied upon to determine seniority of Sub Inspectors as it relates

to Assistant Commandants of the CRPF.  The selection process of

Assistant  Commandants  is  materially  different  from  the  Sub

Inspectors, therefore, such Standing Order could not be taken into

consideration by the High Court to determine the seniority on the

basis of principles laid down in the said Standing Order.  It is also

contended that judgment in  Rohitash Kumar  relied upon by the

High Court was in respect of seniority of Assistant Commandants in

the Border Security Force where the Rule itself contemplates that in

case of direct entrant, the date of appointment shall be the date of

commencement of their training course.  Therefore, the High Court

was not justified in referring to Rohitash Kumar when the Rules

applicable to CRPF do not contemplate determination of seniority

from the date of commencement of training.   

 14) The letter of appointment offered to the Sub Inspectors selected

through limited departmental examination has also been produced

7

by  the  appellants.   Such  letter  of  appointment  was  issued  in

November,  2009 and contemplates  that the selected candidates

will be required to undergo basic training of 20 weeks and, in case,

they do not report by the stipulated date, the offer of appointment

will be deemed to be lapsed.  Thus, the terms of appointment of

the  direct  recruits  and  that  of  promotee  Sub  Inspectors  are

different.  

15) On the other hand, Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, learned senior counsel appearing  for  the  respondents/promotees,  argued  that  the

contentions raised by the appellants are factually and legally not

sustainable.  It is argued that date of allotment cannot be treated

to be the date of appointment which is the basis of determination

of seniority in terms of Rule 8(e) of the Rules.  It is argued that

before direct recruit is appointed as a member of the CRPF, he has

to read the statement contained in the Recruitment Roll set out in

the Schedule in  terms of  Section  5  of  the  Act.   The expression

‘Member  of  the  Force’  is  defined in  Section  2(d)  of  the  Central

Reserve Police Force Act, 19496 and also Rule 6 of the Rules.  Rule 6

contemplates that all  the officers and men mentioned in  Rule 5

shall be deemed to be the members of the Force.  Rule 5 has two

categories; first is Superior Officers and second is Rank and File for

a Battalion of four companies.  The Sub Inspector falls within the

second category.   It  is  contended that  a  direct  recruit  does  not

become  a  member  of  the  Force  unless  he  takes  an  oath  of

6  Act

8

affirmation as per Appendix C set out in Rule 9 of the Rules and

also furnishes Health Certificate in terms of Rule 12. It is pointed

out that the letter of allotment of units dated October 5, 2009 was

the  communication  to  the  Inspector  Generals  of  Police  of  the

various units of CRPF giving names of the selected candidates with

the stipulation that letter of appointment will be issued by them.

Such  letter  was  not  issued  to  any  of  the  direct  recruits.  In

pursuance  of  the  directions  contained,  the  letter  of  offer  of

appointment  was  issued  to  the  Appellants  and  thereafter  on

completion  of  medical  test  and other  requirements,  the training

started in  January,  2010.   It  is  argued that  after  taking  various

steps  such  as  Health  Certificate,  reporting  for  duty,  oath  of

affirmation  as  per  recruitment  rules,  the  direct  recruits  became

members of the Force and, therefore, in terms of Rule 8(e) of the

Rules,  their  seniority  is  to  be  determined  from  the  date  of

appointment  which  is  incidentally  close  to  the  date  of  starting

training. Such appointment is after the promotees who commenced

their training.   

16) Some of the relevant conditions from the Act and Rules referred to by Mr. Guru Krishnakumar read as under:

“The CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ACT, 1949  

2(d).  “member of the force” means a person who has been appointed to the Force by the Commandant , whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and in section 1,3,6,7,16,17,18, and 19 includes also a person  appointed  to  the  force  by  the  Central

9

Government  whether  before  or  after  such commencement;

xx xx xx

5.  Enrolment. - Before a person is appointed to be a member of  the force, the statement contained in the recruiting roll set out in the Schedule shall be read out and if necessary, explained to him in the presence of an officer appointed under sub-section (1) of section 4 and shall be signed by such person in acknowledgement of its having been so read out to him;  

Provided that any person who has for a period of six months served with the force shall on appointment to the force thereafter, be deemed to be a member of the force  notwithstanding  that  provisions  of  this  section have not been complied with in his case.

THE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RULES, 1955  

5.  Composition of the Force. –  A. Battalion other than Signals Battalion  (1)  The Force shall be constituted as follows: (a) Superior Officers:

xx xx xx (b)  Rank and file for a Battalion of four companies…”

xx xx xx

12.   Health  Certificate.  -  No  candidate  shall  be enrolled  unless  he  obtains  a  health  certificate  in  the prescribed  form  CRP-I  signed  by  Medical  Supdt.  and Staff  Surgeon,  Central  Reserve  Police  Hospital, Neemuch,  or  by  a  Civil  Surgeon  or  by  a  Recruiting Medical officer.”

17) Mr. Balasubramanium, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, submitted that Section 5 relates to enrollment of

Constables  alone  and  the  enrollment  of  Sub  Inspectors  is  not

covered by Section 5 of the Act.

10

18) We  do  not  find  any  merit  in  the  arguments  raised  by  learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Balasubramanium.  Section 4 of

the Act provides for appointment of superior officers by the Central

Government,  whereas  the  members  of  the  Force  other  than

superior  officers  fall  within  Section  5  alone.   Section  5

contemplates that before a person is appointed to be a member of

the Force, he shall sign the statement contained in the recruitment

roll set out in the Schedule.  Section 5 does not restrict its scope

and  applicability  only  to  the  Constables  and  to  the  persons

appointed by the Commandant.  In terms of Section 2(d) of the Act,

it includes a person who has been appointed by the Commandant

and  also  a  person  appointed  by  the  Central  Government.   Still

further, Rule 6 contemplates that all officers and men mentioned in

Rule 5 shall be deemed to be the members of the Force.  The Sub

Inspectors  are  part  of  Rank  and  File  for  a  Battalion  of  four

companies.  Therefore, the argument that  Section 5 of the Act is

not applicable to the direct recruits is patently untenable.   

19) 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

11

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 Act

and the Rules, 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.

20) 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

12

the formalities after accepting the offer of appointment, their date

of appointment is later than the date of promotion of the promotee

sub-inspectors.

21) The Standing Order No. 1 of 2009 deals with seniority of Assistant Commandants.  Such Standing Order is  in relation to  Rule 8(b) of

the Rules.  It may be stated that Rule 8(a)  deals with seniority of

Superior Officers; Rule 8(b) deals with inter se seniority of Superior

Officers; whereas Rule 8(c) deals with seniority of person promoted

to the rank of subordinate or under officer.  It is Rule 8(e) of the

Rules  which  is  applicable  in  the  present  case  where  the  direct

recruits are appointed to the same rank as also by the candidates

by  way  of  limited  competitive  examination.   Therefore,  such

Standing Order could not be relied upon to determine the different

set  of  members  of  the  Force.   We  also  find  that  the  Office

Memorandum dated June 24, 1978 referred to by Mr. Nataraj is not

applicable to the members of the Force as admittedly, there is no

roster for the purpose of  recruitment and seniority.   Such Office

Memorandum deals with starting point in the recruitment roster for

the  purpose  of  seniority.   Still  further,  the  Office  Memorandum

dated March 4, 2014 again deals with fixation of seniority where

there is roster of vacancies.   

22) We also find that the second kind of appointment  as explained in Amarjit Singh has no application in the facts of the present case.

In fact, it is the first kind where a person is appointed with effect

13

from the date he assumes charge of the post, would be applicable

in the case in hand. The offer of  appointment was not  with  the

immediate effect but, the candidate was required to convey their

acceptance and also furnishing of  medical  certificate.   Similarly,

N.R. Parmar is a case of roster and the rules contemplating year

of recruiting.  However, there is no such  pari materia rule which

may make the ratio of the said judgment relevant in the present

case.  

23) The judgment in P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors. v. U. Govinda Rao & Ors.7 is not applicable in the facts of the present case as in view of

Rule 8(e) of the Rules, the seniority is required to be determined

from the date of appointment alone.  The judgments referred to by

the learned counsel for the parties are not applicable to the issues

raised  in  the  present  appeals  in  view  of  the  fact  that  such

judgments are interpreting different set of rules.   

24) In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the present set of appeals.  The same are dismissed but for the reasons

other than that which weighed with the High Court.

.............................................J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

.............................................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 27, 2019.

7  (2013) 8 SCC 693

14