Fix Inter Se Seniority of SSB Assistant Commandants by Date of Continuous Appointment, Not 'Order of Selection': Delhi High Court

“No Recruitment Roster, No DOPT OM – Rule 5(3)(iv) Alone Governs Inter Se Seniority Among Assistant Commandants,” In a landmark judgment Delhi High Court decisively ruled that the inter se seniority among Assistant Commandants (ACs) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB)—whether appointed through direct recruitment, promotion, or Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE)—must be determined exclusively under Rule 5(3)(iv) of the 2010 Recruitment Rules, which prescribes seniority based on the date of continuous appointment, and not under the undefined phrase “order of selection” in Rule 5(2).

The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, in the combined decision in Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India and connected writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 1571/2018, 8796/2020, 5247/2021, 7064/2021), quashed the final seniority lists dated 21 and 23 September 2020, holding that the SSB’s reliance on executive instructions, including the DOPT OM dated 24 June 1978, to define “order of selection” under the statutory Rule 5(2), was impermissible and legally unsustainable.

“Where the Rules Speak, Executive Instructions Must Be Silent”: The Court Rejects DOPT OMs and Parmar Doctrine

“We also reject the contention that Rule 5 of the 2010 Rules, or Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, can be treated as a provision relating to ‘method of recruitment’,” the Court observed. Emphasising the limited supersession clause in the 2012 Rules, the Bench clarified, “Rule 5 of the 2010 Rules remained intact and applicable even after the promulgation of the 2012 Rules.”

The Court squarely rejected arguments seeking application of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar (2012) 13 SCC 340 and various DOPT Office Memoranda, holding that these instructions “cannot override statutory rules where they exist”. The Court added, “It is trite that recourse to such executive instructions is permissible only where the Rules are silent.”

Calling the invocation of the 1978 DOPT OM “legally incorrect,” the Court held:

“The 1978 DOPT OM cannot be relied upon to determine ‘order of selection’ under Rule 5(2) because SSB does not maintain any recruitment roster, which is a foundational requirement for that OM to apply.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bobindra Kumar v. Union of India, the Court stressed:

“The OM dated 24-6-1978 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.”

This principle, the Court said, applied equally to the SSB, which emerged from the CRPF and follows the same structural and legal framework.

Court Unambiguously Declares Rule 5(3)(iv) as the Governing Principle for All Modes of Appointment

In a direct answer to the key controversy, the Bench ruled:

“If inter se seniority cannot be determined under Rule 5(2), it must necessarily be determined under Rule 5(3)(iv). We reject the contention that Rule 5(3)(iv) applies only to ACs recruited by the same mode.”

It was further clarified:

“Rule 5(3)(iv) begins with the words ‘Seniority of officers’, without limiting its scope to direct recruits, promotees, or LDCE appointees. The absence of restrictive language makes the rule applicable across all modes.”

The Court therefore concluded that the draft seniority list dated 5 June 2018, which used the date of continuous appointment as the standard, was correct for the years 2003 to 2012, and that the same principle must be extended to the 2013–2016 appointments as well.

“The draft seniority list dated 5 June 2018 placed all ACs, regardless of recruitment mode, based on their dates of continuous appointment. This was the correct application of Rule 5(3)(iv).”

“Preamble Limits Supersession – 2012 Rules Did Not Displace Rule 5 of 2010 Rules,” Rules Court

Interpreting the supersession clauses in the recruitment rules of 2003, 2010, and 2012, the Court held:

“The 2012 RRs superseded the 2010 Rules only in so far as they related to the method of recruitment. The absence of any comma before ‘to regulate the method of recruitment’ is grammatically and legally significant. It limits the supersession.”

The Bench further reasoned that since seniority follows recruitment and only arises after appointment, it does not fall within the scope of ‘method of recruitment’.

“Fixation of seniority is not a component of recruitment. It is a post-recruitment administrative function. Hence, Rule 5 of the 2010 RRs continues to apply and was not displaced by the 2012 RRs.”

Reliance on Executive Instructions Without Legal Basis Violates Established Service Law

While dismissing the SSB’s attempt to defend its seniority list using long-standing practices and appointment letter references, the Court warned:

“Administrative instructions such as Standing Order 06/2001 or individual appointment clauses cannot override Recruitment Rules framed under statute. Once Rules are framed, they must govern.”

It added that mere references to the 1978 OM in some appointment letters did not create estoppel:

“A selective incorporation in appointment letters of six LDCE appointees cannot bind all ACs. Nor can the Court treat some differently. Seniority must be determined uniformly in law.”

“The SSB Has Misread Its Own Rules”: Final Seniority Lists Set Aside, Department Ordered to Redraw Lists

The Court, while allowing the writ petitions, declared:

“The final seniority lists dated 21 September 2020 and 23 September 2020 are quashed and set aside. The SSB is directed to re-fix the seniority of Assistant Commandants for all appointees from 2003 to 2016 strictly in accordance with Rule 5(3)(iv) of the 2010 Recruitment Rules.”

In conclusion, the Court reaffirmed that “statutory rules alone govern seniority where they exist, and no executive instruction can supplement or override them”, thereby firmly reinstating Rule 5(3)(iv) as the sole applicable standard.

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025