Sanchayita Lahkar

The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, addressed a longstanding dispute over the fixation of seniority in the Border Security Force (BSF). The judgement, pronounced on March 19, 2025, centered on the petitioners' claim that they were unfairly placed in the seniority list due to administrative delays despite being selected in the same recruitment process as other officers who were placed above them.

The petitioners, Devinder Singh and Comdt Raj Kumar Arora, were selected through the 1991 recruitment process for the post of Assistant Commandant, a Group A post in the BSF. Despite successfully clearing all required examinations and interviews, their appointments were delayed due to administrative reasons. Consequently, they were placed in the 17th batch instead of the 16th batch, which commenced its training earlier.

Also Read: Supreme Court : ‘Rights and Duties Are Two Sides of the Same Coin’; Directs Court Masters to Record Only Advocates ‘Physically Present and Arguing’ with One Assisting Counsel

The initial seniority list published on July 18, 1995, provisionally placed officers from both batches together, determining their seniority based on aggregate marks obtained in the selection process and training. However, after subsequent clarifications from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the inter-se seniority of both batches was merged, leading to the petitioners receiving notional seniority alongside 16th batch officers.

The situation changed when a judgment in Om Prakash Sharma’s case resulted in a revised seniority order issued on August 24, 2004. The order placed promotee officers between the 16th and 17th batches, effectively altering the petitioners' seniority. The Supreme Court upheld this revision in Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., leading to further modifications.

In a subsequent case, Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court stated that an officer who was delayed in joining due to medical review proceedings should retain seniority based on merit rather than the date of training commencement. Following this decision, affected officers, including the petitioners, sought similar relief.

The petitioners argued that their case was analogous to Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India, as they were also delayed due to reasons beyond their control. They contended that the seniority list issued on January 14, 2020, was unfair as it placed officers with lower aggregate marks above them solely due to training batch assignments.

Their counsel relied on previous judgments, including Avinash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and Naveen Kumar Jha v. Union of India, which held that seniority should be determined by merit and not the date of training commencement. They further submitted that Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors.(2024)  Stated that once a court declares a legal principle benefitting one litigant, similarly situated individuals should automatically receive the same relief without separate litigation.

The respondents, represented by government counsel, contended that the case was governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Rohitash Kumar, which held that for direct recruits, the date of appointment would be the date of training commencement. They argued that revising the petitioners' seniority at this stage would create administrative inconsistencies and disturb settled positions.

Further, they distinguished the petitioners’ case from Dinesh Kumar, stating that the relief granted there was specific to that individual and did not set a general precedent. They also cited B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab and Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, asserting that reopening seniority disputes after a long delay leads to administrative chaos and should be avoided.

The court noted that the petitioners' delayed induction was solely due to administrative inefficiencies, not any fault of their own. It stated that the principle established in R.P. Sanwal v. Union of India & Ors.(2018) applied in this case, stating:

"The respondents could not, on their own, re-fix the seniority solely based on the case of Rohitash Kumar. The petitioners cannot be penalized for any administrative inefficiencies."

The bench further observed that once seniority has been settled for an extended period, reopening it based on later interpretations could lead to undue disruption. It upheld the principle that settled seniority should not be disturbed unless there is an overwhelming legal necessity.

Also Read: “‘ITC Not Mere Gratis’: Karnataka High Court Holds ‘Bona Fide Underclaims Can Be Rectified’, Says ‘Denial Amounts to Double Taxation’”

The Delhi High Court cited in favor of the petitioners, directing that their seniority be notionally re-fixed in line with their batchmates from the 16th batch. The judgement specified:

"The respondents are directed to notionally re-fix the seniority of the petitioners in accordance with their merit position, alongside those who joined the BSF through SSB (CPO-91), without disturbing the seniority of Om Prakash Sharma. The petitioners are also entitled to all consequential benefits."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj and Ms. Priyanshi Bhardwaj

For the Respondents: Ms. Arti Bansal (SPC) with Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul, Mr. Varun Chugh, Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh, and Ms. Meera Chugh

Case Title: Devinder Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1740-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 7007/2020 & W.P.(C) 8005/2020

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur

[Read/Download order]