Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Seniority Refixed by BSF as per Old CRPF Rules; “Settled Seniority Cannot Be Unsettled Unless Statutory Rules Are Violated”

Court’s Decision:

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the refixation of seniority of the petitioner in the BSF pursuant to the directions of the Delhi High Court. The court held that the seniority re-fixation was legally valid and did not contravene any court orders or statutory rules.

Facts:

The petitioner initially joined the Border Security Force (BSF) as a direct entry Sub Inspector on 16th November 1967. The issue arose when he was superseded by his juniors in promotion due to seniority being maintained sector-wise instead of on an All-India basis. The petitioner had earlier succeeded in a writ petition before the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1980, which directed the respondents to refix his seniority and grant promotions accordingly. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, nine other BSF officers filed a similar writ, seeking the same relief. The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted relief to them, leading to a re-fixation of seniority for 357 Sub Inspectors.

The promotions and seniority were altered multiple times based on varying court orders and changes in the rules, causing confusion. Later, several officers filed writ petitions challenging the seniority, leading the Supreme Court to transfer all related cases to the Delhi High Court, which eventually decided in 2002 that seniority was to be fixed as per the old CRPF Rules, 1967.

Issues:

The main issue in the case was:

• Whether the respondents were within their rights to refix the seniority of the petitioner in compliance with the Delhi High Court’s directions despite the settled seniority as per the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s earlier order.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that:

1. The judgment of the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had attained finality since the Special Leave Petition against it was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
2. The respondents had implemented the said judgment by refixing his seniority and granting him promotions, so they could not now re-fix it based on the Delhi High Court’s decision without hearing him.
3. Even the Delhi High Court had clarified that settled seniority should not be disturbed, and the Supreme Court had directed that status quo should be maintained for those whose petitions had already been allowed.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents contended that:

1. The seniority was to be refixed in accordance with the final orders of the Delhi High Court, which directed that promotions should be based on the old CRPF Rules, 1967.
2. The writ petition had become infructuous due to the issuance of the subsequent order dated 03.11.2003, which the petitioner had not specifically challenged by amending his writ petition.
3. The petitioner’s reliance on earlier decisions was misplaced as the matter was re-evaluated by a competent court.

Analysis of the Law:

The court analyzed the procedural requirements for challenging subsequent orders and the legal implications of failing to amend the writ petition. The court emphasized that even though strict procedural laws of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to writ petitions, adherence to the law of pleadings is essential. The petitioner’s failure to formally challenge the refixation order meant that the subsequent action of the respondents could not be effectively disputed.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court, which directed that seniority and promotions in the BSF should be governed as per the CRPF (14th Amendment) Rules, 1967, and that the settled seniority could only be disturbed if it contravened statutory provisions. It also cited the Supreme Court’s order of 1995, which upheld the primacy of the Delhi High Court’s directions in determining seniority for all officers.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court found that:

1. The petitioner was a party to the proceedings before the Delhi High Court, and the decision had been rendered after hearing all affected officers.
2. The Delhi High Court’s judgment specifically held that seniority should be determined as per the old rules, and the petitioner’s seniority had to be re-fixed in accordance with those directions.
3. The contention regarding “unsettling settled seniority” was misinterpreted by the petitioner. The settled position could only be disturbed to comply with statutory rules, which was precisely what was done in this case.

Conclusion:

The petition was dismissed. The court found that the refixation of the petitioner’s seniority was consistent with the statutory rules and prior court orders. The interim orders, if any, stood vacated, and no further relief was granted to the petitioner.

Implications:

The decision reinforces that the seniority and promotion of BSF officers must be determined based on the old CRPF Rules, 1967, unless specific statutory provisions dictate otherwise. It also establishes that procedural deficiencies in challenging administrative actions can result in adverse outcomes for the petitioner. The case underscores the need for parties to formally amend pleadings when seeking to challenge subsequent orders that affect their rights.

Also Read – Patna High Court Upholds Dismissal of Bank Employee for Integrity Violations, Emphasizes Strict Standards for Handling Public Money and No Interference in Disciplinary Actions