Seniority Determination: CRPF Direct Recruits vs. Promotees

In a significant legal case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of seniority determination in the CRPF between direct recruits and promotees. The respondents and petitioners involved in this case presented arguments regarding the interpretation of relevant rules and office memoranda. After careful consideration of the facts, the Court affirmed the High Court’s ruling, providing clarity on the seniority hierarchy within the CRPF. This decision marks a crucial milestone in resolving the dispute.


  • The High Court of Delhi quashed the order dated October 14, 2013, issued by the Directorate General of the CRPF.
  • The High Court also quashed the seniority list dated February 27, 2012.
  • The High Court’s order placed the promotee Sub Inspectors (General Duty) above the direct appointee Sub Inspectors (General Duty) in terms of seniority.
  • The appeals were filed by the direct appointee Sub Inspectors (General Duty) of the CRPF and the Union of India against this order.
  • The direct recruits reported for training in January 2010 as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter.
  • Candidates were allotted to units based on vacancies after the written examination result was declared on July 21, 2009.
  • Selected candidates were issued letters of offer of appointment in pursuance of the allotment process.
  • The appellants produced a letter of appointment dated October 15, 2009 for Ravinder Singh.
  • Inspector Generals were directed to issue offers of appointment to the allotted candidates.
  • The terms and conditions of letter of allotment were consistent with the appointment letter.
  • The training for candidates who were already members of the Force commenced on November 23, 2009.
  • The High Court accepted the seniority claim of the promotee sub-inspectors based on relevant judgments and memorandums.

Also Read: Property Inheritance Dispute: The Legacy of Chhotabhai Ashabhai Patel


  • Rule 8(e) of the Rules states that seniority is determined from the date of appointment alone.
  • Direct recruits were allotted units on October 5, 2009, and appointed on the same date.
  • Direct recruits need to take an oath of affirmation and provide a Health Certificate before becoming members of the Force.
  • Arguments were made against the applicability of certain Office Memoranda and Standing Orders for determining seniority.
  • The direct recruits were rightly assigned seniority based on the date of allotment, considering vacancies in the cadre.
  • Direct recruits became members of the force and their seniority is determined from the date of appointment, which is close to the date of starting training.
  • Appointment of direct recruits is after the promotees who commenced their training.
  • Section 5 of the Act relates to the enrollment of Constables only and not Sub Inspectors.
  • No merit found in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Balasubramanium.
  • Section 4 of the Act.

Also Read: Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma vs. Ministry of Defence: OROP Entitlement for Army Postal Service Personnel


  • Section 5 of the Act does not restrict its applicability to only Constables and persons appointed by the Commandant.
  • Section 2(d) includes persons appointed by the Commandant and the Central Government.
  • Rule 6 states that all officers and men mentioned in Rule 5 are deemed to be members of the Force.
  • Rule 12 mandates a Health Certificate for enrollment of candidates.
  • Roster and rules stipulate year of recruiting.
  • Superior officers are appointed by the Central Government.
  • Direct recruits and promotees appointed on the same date have promotion seniority.
  • Standing Order No. 1 of 2009 concerns seniority of Assistant Commandants.
  • Appointments are effective upon medical certification and acceptance of the offer before training.
  • The judgment in Rohitash Kumar is not applicable as appointment date is not commencement of training in CRPF rules.
  • Health Certificate required before training for appointed candidates.
  • Different rules apply to direct recruits and promotees for seniority determination.
  • Office Memorandum of June 24, 1978 is not relevant due to lack of roster for recruitment and seniority.
  • Date of appointment for candidates is after completion of formalities post offer acceptance.
  • Direct recruits and promotions to Sub Inspector rank follow date of appointment for seniority.
  • Selected candidates allocated to units for issuance of appointment letters.
  • First kind of appointment, effective upon assuming charge, applicable to the case.
  • Office Memorandum relates to recruitment roster for seniority fixation.
  • Office Memorandum of March 4, 2014 pertains to seniority with roster of vacancies.
  • Letter dated October 5, 2009 not addressed to direct recruits.
  • BSF Rules differ significantly from CRPF Rules.
  • The present set of appeals do not have any merit based on the discussion
  • Judgments referred by the counsel for the parties are not applicable as they interpret different rules
  • The issues raised in the appeals are distinct from those addressed in the referred judgments

Also Read: Financial Capacity and Specific Performance: A Landmark Judgment by the Supreme Court Of India


  • The same case is dismissed in the RPC for reasons different from those considered by the High Court.
  • The decision in the High Court is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.


Case Number: C.A. No.-006642-006642 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *