Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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