MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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.

Similar News