BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2019] 11 S.C.R. 752, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Arguments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6642 of 2019)
AUGUST 27, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
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
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 752
752
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
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
BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
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.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 13 SCR 47
referred to
Para 7
[1975] 3 SCR 82
held inapplicable
Para 11
[2012] 13 SCR 555
held inapplicable
Para 12
[2013] (13) SCR 540
held inapplicable
Para 23
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6642 of
2019.
From the  final
Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2018 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No.2197 of 2014.
With
Civil Appeal No. 6643 of 2019
K.M. Natraj,  ASG, Dhruv Mehta, R. Balasubramanium, Guru
Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advs., Ashish Verma, Ms.Avika Madhura, Daksh
Wadhawan, Chandra Prakash, B.V. Balaram Das, S. S. Ray, Kumar
Shashank, Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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.
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 letterof 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
1 CRPF
BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
existing vacancies (normal wastage) of M & N Sector.
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 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,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
757
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
(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
2 Rules
3 (2013) 11 SCC 451
BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
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.
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.5to 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 date of allotment
which has been rightly taken into consideration to fix the seniority.
4 (1975) 3 SCC 503
5 (2012) 13 SCC 340
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
759
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 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
6 Act
BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
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 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
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;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
761
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.
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
BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
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 October26, 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 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 the
formalities after accepting the offer of appointment, their date of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
763
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 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
7 (2013) 8 SCC 693
BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
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.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals dismissed.