The Delhi High Court recently dismissed two writ petitions (W.P.(C) 955/2017 and W.P.(C) 2882/2017) filed by CRPF Assistant Commandants challenging their seniority placement. The petitioners, who were initially part of the 38th Directly Appointed Gazetted Officers (DAGOs) Batch but were relegated to the 39th DAGOs Batch due to injuries sustained during training, sought re-fixation of their seniority. The Court, however, found the petitions barred by delay and laches and non-impleadment of affected parties, choosing not to delve into the merits of the seniority dispute itself.
The case centered around Deputy Commandant Dharam Dass Chorasia and another petitioner who, after being selected as Assistant Commandants in 2004 and joining the 38th DAGOs Batch training in December 2006, suffered injuries. These injuries, deemed attributable to service, led to their withdrawal from the 38th Batch for missing more than 30 days of training. They subsequently completed their training with the 39th DAGOs Batch, with their period of absence from June 9, 2007, to January 14, 2008, regularized as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) without pay.
Upon completion of their training, the petitioners found themselves placed at the top of the 39th DAGOs Batch in the Gradation Lists, effectively placing them below approximately 144 officers who had been appointed through local promotions and were positioned between the 38th and 39th DAGOs Batches.
Petitioners' Contentions:
The petitioners argued that their seniority should be fixed with the 38th DAGOs Batch, as their relegation was due to service-attributable injuries and not their own volition. They contended that their seniority was governed by the CRPF Group "A" (General Duty) Officers Recruitment Rules, 2001, which states that for direct entrants, the year of the result declaration determines seniority. They also argued that Standing Order (SO) No. 01/2009, which formed the basis of their seniority determination, should not apply retrospectively or to cases where absence was not voluntary. They cited judgments like Shankar Lal Jat vs. Union of India (2024) to support their claims, noting that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition against it. Furthermore, they asserted that the petitions were not barred by delay as the seniority list was prepared contrary to statutory provisions and was thus "non-est."
Respondents' and Intervenors' Arguments:
The respondents (CRPF) and the intervenors (officers of the 38th DAGOs Batch whose seniority would be affected) strongly argued for the dismissal of the petitions on grounds of delay and laches. They pointed out that the petitioners had represented against the 2010 Gradation List and their representations were rejected in 2011, but the writ petitions were only filed in 2017 – a delay of almost six years. They emphasized that seniority matters should not be reopened after a significant lapse of time as it disturbs settled positions and vested rights of other officers. They also argued that the petitioners had already received promotions based on the existing seniority lists and thus could not challenge them now.
On merits, the respondents contended that the seniority was correctly fixed as per SO No. 01/2009 read with Rule 8(b)(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which mandates relegation for officers missing more than 30 days of training. The intervenors further stressed that affected officers were not impleaded, making the petitions unsustainable.
Court's Analysis and Findings:
The Delhi High Court identified three key issues: delay and laches, non-impleadment of adversely affected officers, and the merits of the seniority fixation.
Delay and Laches:
The Court noted that despite the rejection of their representations in 2011, the petitioners waited nearly six years to file the writ petitions. While acknowledging that there's no "inviolable rule" for dismissing petitions based solely on delay, the Court reiterated the principle from B.S. Bajwa and Anr. vs. Union of India (1998) that seniority questions should not be reopened after a reasonable period to avoid disturbing settled positions. The Court dismissed the petitioners' explanation of being posted in different locations as insufficient to justify the substantial delay. It also highlighted that officers of the 38th DAGOs Batch had already been promoted to Deputy Commandant in 2013, solidifying the seniority position. Citing Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008), the Court emphasized that in cases affecting others' seniority, delay renders claims stale.
Non-Impleadment:
The Court found that the petitioners were seeking to alter their seniority, which would directly affect not only some officers from the 38th DAGOs Batch but also approximately 130 locally promoted officers who were placed senior to them. Since these officers were not individually impleaded as parties to the petitions, their rights would be adversely affected without a chance to be heard. The Court concluded that these un-impleaded officers were necessary and proper parties, and their absence rendered the petitions liable for dismissal on this ground.
Merits:
Crucially, the Court chose not to delve deeply into the merits of the seniority dispute. While acknowledging that the petitioners' case might be covered by the Shankar Lal Jat judgment, it noted that the Supreme Court, in dismissing the SLP against Shankar Lal Jat, had "kept the question of law open." This implied that the Shankar Lal Jat judgment was not a judgment in rem that would automatically apply to all similar, closed cases where seniority had already been determined and not challenged in a timely manner.
Regarding the claim for salary and allowances during the EOL period, the Court noted that this claim was also rejected by office orders in 2008-2009, making the challenge in 2017 similarly belated. Furthermore, the petitioners' counsel did not even make submissions on this specific prayer during the hearings.
Conclusion:
Based on the significant delay in challenging the seniority lists and the failure to implead all necessary parties whose seniority would be affected, the Delhi High Court dismissed both petitions. This ruling underscores the importance of timely legal action in service matters, particularly those involving seniority, to prevent the unsettling of established rights and positions within an organization.
