Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Delhi High Court Directs BSF to Appoint Petitioner as Constable, Upholding Rights under Old Recruitment Rules

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment on March 11, 2024, the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee, has allowed a writ petition by Md. Abdul Ahad Azim against the Union of India and Others, challenging the denial of his appointment in the Border Security Force (BSF).

Legal Context: Azim's petition questioned the validity of a letter issued by BSF, which disqualified him from recruitment under the new Recruitment Rules of 2010 for the post of Constable (Tradesmen) Group 'C', despite his earlier selection in 2008 under Group 'D' post rules.

Facts and Issue: The petitioner, selected in 2008 under the Group 'D' recruitment process, was later denied appointment due to changes in recruitment rules following the 6th Central Pay Commission's recommendations. This raised significant legal questions about the applicability of new rules to an already completed selection process.

Court's Assessment and Decision: Justice Rao, in the judgment, observed, "the petitioner had the legitimate expectation to be appointed to the post in question as the selection process had already been initiated and a merit list thereof was already prepared." The court found the non-appointment of Azim arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing that changes in recruitment rules cannot impinge on the rights of candidates selected under previous rules.

Relief Granted: The High Court directed the appointment of Md. Abdul Ahad Azim as a 'Follower' in BSF from October 2008. He is to be trained and absorbed as a Constable (Washerman). However, monetary benefits are denied, with only notional pay fixation and seniority granted from the intended date of appointment.

Conclusion: The judgment is a landmark in upholding the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the rights of candidates in recruitment processes.

Date of Decision: March 11, 2024

Md. Abdul Ahad Azim vs Union of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News