Promotees Cannot Claim Seniority Over Direct Recruits Merely Due to Delayed DPC: Delhi High Court Quashes ITBP’s Seniority List Putting 2015 Recruits Below 2017 Promotees

“Seniority Depends on Date of Appointment, Not Year of Vacancy”— In a latest judgment Delhi High Court quashed the Indo-Tibetan Border Police’s (ITBP) seniority list dated April 24, 2020, which had placed direct recruits of 2015 below promotees of 2017, on the ground that the latter were promoted against earlier vacancy years (2013–2016). The Court held that such retrospective seniority violated Rule 8(e) of the CRPF Rules, which mandates that seniority is to be reckoned from the date of appointment, and not from the year in which vacancies arose.

Justice C. Hari Shankar, writing for the Division Bench along with Justice Ajay Digpaul, ruled: “Rule 8(e) is clear in its command that inter se seniority among direct recruits and promotees to the same rank would be reckoned from their date of appointment. The rule ambits neither of ambiguity nor of equivocation.”

The petitioners were selected through a written test held on October 20, 2013, and joined as Assistant Commandants in ITBP in June 2015. Due to a stay order in a related merger/de-merger litigation, the Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) for promotion from Subedar Majors and Inspectors to Assistant Commandants could not be held until July 26, 2017, when promotions were eventually conducted for vacancies dating back to 2013–2016.

Based on these retroactively assigned vacancies, ITBP revised its seniority list on April 24, 2020, placing the 2017 promotees above the 2015 direct recruits. The petitioners were not served any show cause notice, nor were they consulted before this adverse change in their seniority.

Seniority Follows Appointment, Not Vacancy Year

The High Court held that the ITBP’s decision directly violated Rule 8(e) of the CRPF Rules, a statutory provision applicable to ITBP via the ITBP Rules, 1994. The Court emphasized: “The respondents cannot rely on any executive instruction or principle to justify according seniority to a promotee Assistant Commandant over a direct recruit who joined earlier.”

Relying on the principle laid down in Ispat Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, the Court clarified the legal hierarchy: “Where the field is occupied by statutory Rules, executive instructions in the form of OMs have no role to play… DOPT OMs cannot derogate from the position that emerges from the Rules.”

The Court dismissed ITBP’s reliance on administrative guidelines like the DOPT OM dated 10 April 1989, noting that no such document can override Rule 8(e). The Bench reiterated that promotions—even if delayed—cannot retrospectively affect the seniority of those already appointed.

Promotees Cannot Claim Seniority from Notional Vacancy Years

The Court distinguished earlier rulings cited by the respondents, including Asim Kumar Samanta and U.D. Lama, finding them inapplicable:

“We do not have, in the present case, any provision akin to Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal Rules. Rather, Rule 8(e) clearly requires seniority between direct recruits and promotees to be fixed as per their date of joining.”

It also cited the Supreme Court’s clarification in Sunaina Sharma v. State of J&K:

“It would be pertinent to mention that in both these cases, the normal principle that seniority should be considered from the date of appointment has not been overruled… these judgments were rendered in very peculiar facts.”

No Seniority Without Being Borne on the Cadre

The Court rejected the promotees’ claim to seniority from 2013–14 on the ground that:

“They were not even borne on the cadre of Assistant Commandants at that time. One cannot claim seniority from a date when not in the service.”

The Bench reiterated the principle that "seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre", as reaffirmed in Subodh Rokade and Yash Rattan.

Holding that the promotees cannot override the seniority of direct recruits who joined earlier merely because their promotions were linked to past vacancy years, the Court quashed the impugned April 2020 seniority list and ordered ITBP to redraw it based strictly on date of appointment.

Justice C. Hari Shankar concluded: “The seniority list circulated by the ITBP vide Memorandum dated 24 April 2020, insofar as it places the petitioners en bloc below the promotee Assistant Commandants, is clearly violative of Rule 8(e) of the CRPF Rules.”

The ITBP was directed to comply within three months.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2025