Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

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.

Similar News