Seniority Dispute Dismissed Over Delay and Non-Impleadment | Delhi High Court Rejects CRPF Officers’ Plea After Relegation Due to Training Injury
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Tejas Karia has dismissed a plea challenging the fixation of seniority in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), holding that the petitioners' claim is barred by delay and laches. The Bench declared that the seniority of officers who were relegated to a later batch due to medical absence during training had been correctly determined under applicable Standing Orders and statutory rules. The Court found no grounds to re-open the long-settled gradation list, especially in the absence of officers whose seniority would be directly affected.
Concluding that the petitions had been filed nearly six years after the rejection of administrative representations and issuance of seniority lists, the Court held that the delay alone warranted dismissal. Moreover, the Court recorded that even on merits, the petitioners had no claim as their seniority was determined in line with Standing Order 01/2009 and CRPF Rules, 1955. The petitioners had also failed to implead necessary parties. The Court declined to revisit settled positions of law and fact, stating that "in service matters, the question of seniority should not be re-opened after the lapse of a reasonable period."
The petitioners were selected through the UPSC's CAPF (A/C) Exam-2004 and were appointed to the post of Assistant Commandant in the CRPF. Pursuant to their selection, they reported to the CRPF Academy at Kadarpur, Gurgaon on 26.12.2006, to undergo basic training with the 38th Directly Appointed Gazetted Officers (DAGOs) Batch, which commenced on 27.12.2006. Their appointments were notified on 19.02.2007, with names appearing in the official gazette.
While undergoing training in May/June 2007, the petitioners sustained service-related injuries. One of them suffered a stress fracture in the left foot and was granted medical leave from 07.05.2007 to 05.06.2007. Based on the opinion of a Board of Officers, the injury was found to be attributable to service.
Upon return, as the absence exceeded 30 days, the petitioners were not permitted to continue with the 38th DAGOs Batch. They were withdrawn from training and directed to re-join with the next batch—i.e., the 39th DAGOs Batch—which commenced on 15.01.2008. This decision was based on existing CRPF policy dated 08.03.2001. The petitioners successfully completed their training on 21.12.2008.
Thereafter, their service period from 09.06.2007 to 14.01.2008 was regularized as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) without pay, by Office Orders dated 12.01.2009 and 29.07.2009. Following training, they were posted to respective battalions.
On 13.04.2009, a communication informed one petitioner that his seniority had been fixed at S.No. 1011 in the Gradation List as on 01.01.2008. However, in the list dated 01.01.2010, officers of the 38th DAGOs Batch were placed from serial 602 to 778, while the petitioners were placed among the 39th DAGOs Batch, i.e., at S.Nos. 925 and 926. The serial numbers 779 to 922 were occupied by officers promoted through local promotions.
The petitioners submitted representations on 11.10.2010 and 20.08.2010, respectively, seeking placement along with the 38th DAGOs Batch. These were rejected in 2011, citing Standing Order 01/2009 and Rule 8(b)(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955.
Subsequent efforts, including RTI applications and legal notices dated 02.06.2015 and 10.08.2015, were also unsuccessful. The respondents maintained that the seniority had been correctly fixed under the applicable rules.
Promotions based on the 2009 seniority list occurred in 2013 for officers of the 38th DAGOs Batch. The petitioners were considered in later years; one being promoted in 2014. The petitions were filed in 2017.
The Bench recorded: "It is the admitted case of the petitioners that they were withdrawn from the 38th DAGOs Batch due to medical leave and completed their training with the 39th DAGOs Batch."
Regarding delay, the Court observed: "The petitioners did not challenge the Gradation List or the rejection of their representation for almost six years... With the Gradation List gaining finality, rights crystallized in favour of persons who had been placed senior to the petitioners."
The Court stated: "In B.S. Bajwa... the Supreme Court warned that in service matters, the question of seniority should not be re-opened after the lapse of a reasonable period." The Bench further noted: "Merely because the respondents made further representations, including serving a legal notice... cannot adequately explain the delay of the petitioners."
Addressing the applicability of judicial precedents, the Court clarified: "The Judgment in Shankar Lal Jat... cannot be said to be a judgment in rem, intending to apply even to closed cases where seniority stands determined for long."
On the non-impleadment of necessary parties, the Court stated: "The petitioners are seeking the re-fixation of their seniority along with the 38th DAGOs Batch... This would necessarily mean that they will claim a march over some of the 38th DAGOs Batch of officers and 130 officers who joined before them through local promotions... In their absence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed."
On the Standing Order 01/2009, the Bench found: "The seniority of the petitioners has been rightly fixed at the top of the officers completing the 39th DAGOs Batch of training in terms of SO No. 01/2009 dated 12.01.2009."
The Bench also noted that: "No submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the claim for salary for the period of EOL... The claims are, therefore, belated and cannot be granted."
The High Court issued the following directives: "In view of the above, the present petitions are dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs."
Further, the Bench clarified: "The present petitions are liable to be dismissed only on ground of delay and laches."
The Court also recorded: "The petitions are liable to be dismissed in absence of impleadment of the officers whose seniority would be adversely affected... Only because some of the officers... have chosen to file the above application seeking their impleadment, cannot mean that they are also representing the interest of the other officers..."
Finally, the Court held: "Though the case of the petitioners appears to be covered by the Judgment... in Shankar Lal Jat... this Judgment... cannot be said to be a Judgment in rem... In the facts of the present case, therefore, we need not dwell further on this issue."
Regarding salary claims: "The claims are, therefore, belated and cannot be granted... Even otherwise, no submissions were made... in support of the claim for salary for this period."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Amrit Kaul, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr. Nikunj Arora, and Ms. Muskaan Dutta, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich and Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Advocates
Case Title: Dy. Comdt. Dharam Dass Chorsia & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4957-DB
Case Numbers: W.P.(C) 955/2017 and W.P.(C) 2882/2017
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Tejas Karia
[Read/Download order]
