Holding

The seniority of SSCOs appointed in the BSF after 1968 is governed by the BSF Act, BSF Rules and executive orders, not by CRPF Rule 8(b); therefore their prior Army service does not count for seniority.

Summary

The petitioners, Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) appointed as Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force (BSF) between 1974 and 1978, claimed that their prior Army service should be counted for seniority, relying on Rule 8(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules. The Court examined whether their recruitment was governed by CRPF Rule 113(3)(iv‑A) and whether Rule 8(b) applied to BSF seniority. It held that after the enactment of the BSF Act, 1968, the CRPF Rules ceased to apply to the BSF; recruitment and seniority were governed by the BSF Act, the BSF Rules and subsequent executive orders. Consequently, the Army service of SSCOs could not be counted for seniority in the BSF, and the petition was dismissed. The Court also dismissed the civil appeal challenging the seniority of ex‑Emergency Commissioned Officers (ECOs) appointed in the BSF during 1966‑71, confirming that their seniority fixation was valid.

Issues considered

Whether the appointment of SSCOs as Assistant Commandants in the BSF during 1974‑78 was made under CRPF Rule 113(3)(iv‑A).
Whether Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules governs the seniority of those officers in the BSF and permits counting of prior Army service.
Whether the denial of counting Army service for SSCOs in the BSF violates the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Legislation cited

Border Security Force Act, 1968s. 141, s. 2(s), s. 4(2)
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949
CRPF Rules, 1955s. 113(3)(iv‑A), s. 8(b)

Subjects

seniorityBorder Security ForceEmergency Commissioned OfficerShort Service Commissioned OfficerCRPF RulesArticle 14Article 16recruitmentexecutive orderservice law

Judgment

RAVI PAUL AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JANUARY 19, 1995

[KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Service Law-Border Security Force Act, 1968-BSF-Seniority-Emer-
gency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Of-
ficers-Recruitment as Assistant Commandants after their release from the
Anny-Claim for counting service rendered by them in the Anny for fixation C
of their seniority in BSF-Whether entitled to invoke Rule B(b) of CRPF
Rules-Held. No-Appointments/absorptions were made under BSF Act and
executive order-Not under CRPF Rules 1955.

Service Law-Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955-Rule 8 · (b)
(ij- Expression 'rank'-Means rank in CRPF-Earlier army service of an D
anny Officer or a re-employed Anny Officer-Whether can be counted for the
purpose of seniority in the CRPF.

Constitution of Indicr-Arts. 14 & 16-Seniority-Detennination
of-Recruitment of ECOs/SSCOs as Assistant Commandants in BSF and E
CRPF-CRPF and BSF governed by separate statutory provisions--Benefit of
past service in Anny given to SSCOs in CRPF and not in BSF-Whether
suffers from the vice of discrimination-Held No-Government not granting
benefit of past service in Anny to SSCOs in BSF during 1974-78-Condition
mentioned in letters of appointment-Whether discriminatory-Held.
No-ECOs absorbed/appointed in BSF during 1967-SSCOs appointed/ab- F
sorbed during 1974-78--0fficers belonging to two different categories and not
persons similarly situate.

Service Law-Appointment as Assistant Commandmtnts in BSF in
year 1966-67-Seniority-Ex-ECOs absorbed/appointed as Assistant Com- G
mandants during 1966-1971 given benefit of past service in Anny-Such a
condition not prohibited by CRPF Rules or BSF Rules-No legal infinnity in
fixation of seniority.

Service law-Exercise of executive power by Government-Authority to
recruit on basis of executive orders-Pennissible-Not obligatory to make H
419
y

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A recJUitment 1Ules before Se1vice constituted--Govemment can make appoint-
ments in absence of rules.

Hearing a Writ Petition and a Civil Ap11eal together the Supreme
Court considered the issue of 'seniority' in the BSF.

B In the wake of the Chinese aggression in 1962, in u.rder to meet the
shortage of Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army, the Government
of India had started a special scheme of selection of officers through
Service Selection Board and granted them Commissions in the Indian
Army. Such Commissioned Officers were called Emergency Commissioned
C Officers (ECOs). In 1965, additional system of Short Service Commission
(SSC) was introduced.

The Border Security Force, a para military force, was constituted in
1965. It was governed by the CRPF Rules, 1955 made under the CRPF Act,
1949. In order to attract ECOs/SSCOs from the Army to the BSF to fulfill
D its need for experienced officers in the BSF the Government offered that
their service in the Army would be counted for the purpose of seniority in
the BSF. During 1966-71 a number of ECOs were appointed as Assistant
Commandants (ACs) in the BSF.

On September 2 1968, Parliament enacted the BSF Act, 1968. BSF
E (Assistant Commandments Recruitment) Rules were made in 1969 but
\Vere repealed by the BSF (Assistant Commandments) Recruitment
(Repeal) Rules, 1973. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs' executive order dated January 16, 1974 prescribed the
manner for recruitment to the posts of ACs in the BSF.
F
On July 5, 1972 the Government of India indicated that the service
in the Army was to be counted for the purpose of seniority of ex-ECOs I
appointed as DSP/Company Commander in the BSF, CRPF, ITBP and
Assam Rifles.
r
G By letter dated September 6, 1972 the Government of India changed
its recruitment and seniority policy. It constituted a Special Selection
Board for recruitment of released SSCOs and ECOs as ACs in the ~F,
CRPF and Assam Rifls etc. As very few applications were received wider
publicity was requested from the Army Headquarters. It was stated that
H the Army Service rendered as SSRCOs would not be count~d for (he
- RAVI PAUL v. U.O.I. 421

purpose of seniority and pension, if selected in the para military forces. A
The letter of appointment of candidates selected thereafter also reflected
the same position.

Respondent No. 3 to 445 in the Civil Appeal were ECOs absorbed/ap-
pointed as AC's in BSF during 1966-71 whose past Army service had been
taken into account while fixing seniority. Appellants have been directly B
recruited as AC's in the year 1966-67. Upon the dismissal in 1983 of the
appellants' earlier Writ Petition in the High Court assailing the fixation
of seniority they preferred the present Civil Appeal.

The petitioners in the present Writ Petition were SSCOs who after C
their release from the Indian Army were appointed as ACs in the BSF after
selection by the Special Selection Board during the years 1974-78. In a
separate Writ Petition in the Supreme Court they had challenged the denial
of benefit in their past service in the Army for the purpose of seniority or
promotion when the said service was considered in the matter of fixation
of pay. The respondents countered with the letters of appointment which D
showed that past Army service would not count towards seniority and
promotion in the BSF. The writ petition was dismissed in 1964.

After the Delhi High Court, and on appeal, the Supreme Court in
1986 had given the benefit of Past Army service in the matter of seniority E
ofECOs/SSCOs absorbed in the CRPF, the ECOs/ SSCOs absorbed during
1974-78 as ACs in the BSF represented for revision of their seniority. The
said representation was rejected relying on the terms in the appointment
letters. They filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court seeking benefits
of their Army service as given to officers abosorbed in CRPF which was
dismissed as barred res judicata. They then filed a Special Leave Petition F
wherein they were granted time to submit a detailed representation to the
Government of India regarding the merits of their case.

Upon the rejection of the representation so presented they filed
present Writ Petition claiming that they had been absorbed/appointed in G
the BSF in accordance with the provisions cont.ained in Rule 113(3)(iv-A)
of the CRPF Rules and that their seniority was governed by rule 8 of the
CRPJ;' Rules. Further, that they had been selected by the Special Selection
Board which had also selected the SSCOs the CRPF and that there was no
rational basis for treating SSCOs thus selected who were all similarly
situated prior to their selection by the Board, differently, in the matter of H
y

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A fixation of seniority. It was also urged that ECOs who were absorbed/ap-
pointed to the BSF during the period of 1967- 71 had been given the benefit
of counting their past service in the Army and there was no reason why ~

similar benefit should not be extended to SSCOs absorbed/appointed in the
BSF during 1974- 78.

B Dismissing the Writ Petition as well as the Civil Apeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The CRPF Rules, which governed recruitment to the BSF
ceased to have application after the enactment of the BSF Act, 1968. There-
after, the BSF Recruitment Rules and after their repeal the Government of
India order dated January 16,1974 governed recruitment. The repeal of the
--I
c BSF ·Recruitment Rules in 1973 would not have the effect of reveiving the
applicability of the CRPF Rules to the BSF. Absorption/appointment of
SSCOs to the post of ACs in the BSF after selection by the Selection Board ,I
during 1974-78 was not made under the provisions of Rule 113(3) (iv- A) of
the CRPF Rules but under the provisions of the BSF Act and the executive
D order of the Government of India dated January 16, 1974.
[433-G-H, 434-A] ...l.-
1.2. Rules regarding seniority of officers in the BSF were made for the
first time, on December 9, 1978 when the BSF Seniority Rules were publish-
ed. Till then, there was no rule regarding fixation of seniority of officers in
E the BSF and the said matter was governed by executive orders only. One
such executive order was contained in the letter dated September 6, 1972
wherein it was specifically mentioned that service rendered as SSCOs in
the Army would not count towards seniority and pension in the BSF and
was further clarified in the letter of appointment of the petitioners. Even
the BSF Seniority Rules, 1978 had no provision for giving the benefit of past )4.
F Army Service to SSCOs absorbed/appointed in the BSF. Therefore, the
seniority of SSCOs absorbed/appointed in the BSF on selection by the
Special Selection Bo~rd during 1974-78 was not governed by Rule 8(b) of
the CRPF Rules but by the provisions contained in the BSF Act, the Rules
made thereunder and the Executive Orders issued by the Central Govern-
ment. [435-C-E-G-H]
G
1.3. In law it is permissible to do so because it is well settled that it
). ~
is not obligatory to make rules for recruitment etc. before a service is
constituted or a post created or filled; and the Government, in exercise of
its executive power, could make appointment in the absence of rules.
H (433-F]
RAVI PAULv. U.0.1. 423

B.N. Nagarajan and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors., [1966) 3 SCR A
682, relied on. ·

1.4. Rule 8(b)(i) of the CRPF Rules only governed the seniority as
between Army Officers inter se and there was nothing therein to indicate
that the earlier Army Service was to be counted for the purpose of seniority
in CRPF since Rule 8(b) (i) was silent in that regard. Executive instruc- B
tions could be issued by the Central Government for the purpose of giving ·
benefit of Army service. With that end in view the Government of India, in
the letter dated July S, 1972 had laid down certain priciples for the purpose
of fixation of seniority of ex-ECOs appointed in the BSF, CRPF and Assam
Rifles applicable only to ex-ECOs absorbed/appointed in these forces C
during 1967-1970. [437-C-D]

U.B.S. Teotia and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. Delhi, decided by
the Delhi High Court on 2.9.1995, referred to •

.......__ 1.5. CRPF and BSF being two distinct forces were governed by D
separate statutory provisions. If in the CRPF, the benefit of past service
in the Army was given to SSCOs absorbed/appointed after selection during
1974/78 on account of the provisions of Rule 8(b) of CRPF Rules as
construed by the High Court, it was not necessary that the said benefit
should also be made available to the petitioners who were absorbed/ap- E
pointed in the BSF as in the BSF there was no rule similar to Rule 8(b)
of the CRPF Rules which conferred this benefit. In fact the said benefit
had been expressly denied to the officers absorbed/appointed in the BSF
•.ll( during 1974-78, inasmuch as prior to recruitment, the Government of
India had clearly indicated that service rendered as SSRCOs would not
count towards seniority and pension. [438-E·G] F
Merely because the policy enumerated in the.letter of September 6,
1972, which was applicable to all relea~ed S~COs who were to be ab-
sorbed/appointed in the various para military forces of the Government of
India could not.be given effect in CRPF on account of Rule 8(b) of the G
CRPF Rules, would not mean that the said policy in its application to the
BSF, where there was no such legal impediment, suffered from the voice
of discrimination. [439-B]

1.6. ECOs who were absorbed/appointed in the BSF during 1967-71
had joined the Army during the emergency in the wake of the Chinese H
y

424 SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS [l.995) 1 S.C.R. '1

A aggression when there was a need for competent officers and in order to
~
attract such officers to the BSF it was considered necessary to give the ~

benefit of the Army service for the purpose of seniority in the BSF.
(439-E-F]
1.7. Later SSCOs had joined the Army as a career after the emergency
B resulting from the Chinese aggression was over. When they were ab-
sorbed/appointed during 1974-78 there was a change in the government
policy and the benefit of their army service was not to be given. This ~
--i,..
condition had been expressly mentioned in their letters of appointment and ..
they had opted to join the BSF knowing fully well that their Army service
would not be counted for seniority in the BSF. The ECOs absorbed/ap-
c pointed during 1967-71 and the SSCOs absorbed/appointed during 1974-78
were officers belonging to two different categories and they could not be
regarded as persons similarly situated. (439-G-H, 440-A]

1.8. Respondents, in the Civil Appeal were ex-ECOs absorbed/ap-
pointed as ACs in the BSF during 1966-71, given the benefit of past army
.~
D service and shown as senior to the appellants who were directly appointed
as ACs during 1966-67. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants challeng-
ing the fixation of seniority of respondents bad ~een rightly dismissed by
the.High Court because for the ex-ECOs it had been expressly stated that
their Army service would be counted towards seniority. Such a condition
E was not prohibited by any provision of the CRPF Rules, BSF Act or the
rules made thereunder. It could not be said that the fixation of seniority of
the respondents suffered from any legal infirmity. (440-C-D]

CML ORIGINAL JU~ISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No.146 of 'j,
1992 & C.A. No. 2127/85.
F
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, Harish N. Salve, P.P. Rao;
Ashok K. Mahajan, K.K.Mohan, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, P. Parmeswaran;
A. Subba Rao, Ms. A. Subhashini, C.V.S. Rao, Dipak K. Nag, for V.B.
G Saharya & Co. for the appearing parties.
)..
The Judgment of the Court was delievered by

· S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Both these matters raise a common question
regarding determination of seniority of Emergency Commissioned Officers
H (ECOs) and Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) who were
RAVI PAULv. U.0.1. [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 425

recruited as Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force after A
their release from the Army. The question is whether the said Officers are
entitled to count the service rendered by them in the Army for the purpose
of fixation of their seniority in the Border Security Force.

In the wake of the Chinese aggression in 1962, in order to meet the
shortage C!f Commissioned Officers in the Indian Army, the Government B
of India started a special scheme to select officers through Service Selec-
tion Board and granting them Commission in the Indian Army. Such
Commissioned Officers were called Emergency Commissioned Officers
(ECOs). In 1965, in addition to the E""ergency Commisioned Officers the
system of Short Service CommissioL. {SSC) was introduced. The initial C
period of such Commission was 5 y· rs but it was extendable for another
5 years depending on the requirement/suitability of the officer. After the
expiry of the initial period of 5 years, the officer, even if granted extension,
could request for release during the extended period at any stage. After
the expiry of the extended period, he was to be released unless he was D
found acceptable for grant of permanent Commission in the Indian Army
and was granted permament Commission.

The Border Secruity Force is one of the paramilitary forces of the
Government of India. It was constituted in 1965. It was intially governed
by Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the E
'CRPF Rules') made under the provisions of the Central Reserve Police
Force Act, 1949. For that purpose Chapter XV (Rules 112 to 116) was
inserted in the CRPF Rules on December 21, 1966. The siµd Chapter bears
the heading "Special Provisions relating to Border Security Force". Rule
113 thus introduced made provision for appointment and promotion of F
superior officers. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 113 related to appointment on the
posts of Deputy Commandant, Assistant Commandant or Adjudent or
Joint Assistant Directors or other equivalent rank and sub-Rule (3) related
to appointment on the posts of Company Commanders, Quarter-masters
and Junior Staff Officers and other posts in the force equivalent thereto.
On May 11, 1967, the CRPF Rules were further amended and Clause (ivA) G
was inserted in sub-Rule (3) of Rule 113 and thereby provision was made
for appointment of ECOs and SSCOs who were commissioned on or after
November 1, 1962 and' were released at any time thereafter. A similar
provision was contained in clause (ivA) introduced in sub-Rule (4) of Rule
105 of the CRPf Rules which provided for appointment to the post of H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A C~mpany CQ.iitmanders or Quarter-master in Battalians other th~n Signal
--Battaiians or Ass1stant Principal Central Training College in the Centr:al ~
Reserve Police Force. On September 2, 1968, Parliament enacted the
Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSF Act')
to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the
B Union for ensuring the security of the borders of India and for matters
connected therewith. Sub"section (1) of section 141 of the BSF Act em-
powers the Central Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying
into effect the provisions of the said Act. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of 1
Section 141 confers the specific power to frame rule to provide for the
enrolment of persons to the force and the, recruitment of other members
C of the Force. Clause (c) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 141 confers the
power to m<•ke rules providing for conditions of service (including deduc- .
tions from vay and allowances) of the members of the Force. Under
sub-Section (2) of Section 142 members of the Border Security Force in
existence at the commencement of the Act are deemed to have been
D appointed or, as the case may be, enrolled as such under the Act. _.j,,.._

In exerciae of the powers conferred by Section 141 of the BSF Act
the Central Government has made the Border Security Force Rules, 1969
(hereinafter referred to as the 'BSF Rules') which came into force on June
13, 1969. Rule 9 which provides for appointment of officers lays down:
E
"9. Appointment of Officers.-

The Central Government may appoint such persons as it considers
to be suitable in the Force, and their conditions of service shall be
such as may be provided in the rules made in this behalf by the
F Central Government."

As regards seniority the following provision is made in sub-rule (2)
of Rule 14:

"14(2) Matters relating to inter se seniority of persons belonging to
G the same rank shall be determined in accordance with such rules
as may be made in this behalf."

By notification dated December 8, 1969, the Central Government
made the Border Security Force (Assistant Commandants Recruitment)
H Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSF Recruitment Rules') which
RAVIP AUL v. U.0.1. [S.C. AG RAWAL, J.] 427

provided for the manner of recruitment to the post of Assistant Cornman- A
dants in the Border Secruity Force. The said Rules were repealed by the.
Border Security Force (Assistant Commandants) Recruitment (Repeal)
Rules, 1973 published on November 23, 1973. After the repeal of the BSF
Recruitment Rules, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
issued an order dated January 16, 1974 prescribing the manner for recruit-
ment to the posts of Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force.
B
The. said order provided that the posts of Assistant Commandants shall be
filled in by (i) direct recruitment from amongst candidates possessing the
qualifications laid down therein; or (ii) re-employment of retired or
released army officers who have held the rank of Captain or retired State
Police Officers or retired Officers of the Border Security Force who have C
held the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or an Assistant
Coµunandant or other equivalent ranks; or (iii) transfer on deputation from
the rank. of Captain from the Army or Assistant Superintendent of Police
or Deputy Superiatendent of Police from the State Government; or (iv)
transfer on deputation (by promotion) of Officer holding the post of D
Inpector of Police or equivalent post, having held such post for a period
of three years in any Central or State Police Organizatioin; or (v) promo-
tion of Subedars (Inspectors) of the Border Secruity Force who have not
completed the age of 50 years; or (vi) transfer/promotion froni suitable
ministerial staff not below the rank of an Assistant, serving at Head-
quarters, Director General, Border Security Force. E

Soon after the constitution of the BSF in 1965 the Gover.nment
needed exper.ienced officer for the force and in order to attract ECOs/
SSCOs from the Army to the BSF it was offered that their service in Army
would be counted for the purpose of seniority in the BSF. Similar benefit p
with regard to counting of Army service for seniority was also given to
ECOs/SSCOs who were appointed in other civil services under the Emer-
gency Service Commissioned Officers (Recruitment and Vacancies) Rules
1967. The said Rules ceased to have application on June 24, 1974 and the
facility of recruitrimet of the ECOs/SSCOs against vacancies in civil ser-
vices was discontinued. Similarly, in the matter of adsorption/appointment G
in the para military forces there was a change in the policy of the
Government of India. By letter dated September 6, 1972 it was indicated
that ArmY. service would not be counted for the purpose of seniority in
respect of SSCOs who were absorbed/appointed on the basis of future
selections. The Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superan- H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A nuafion) Rules, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as t~e 'BSF Seniority Rules')
were published on December 9, 1978. Rule 3 of the said Rules provided
for seniority of officers and in clause (v) of sub-Rule (2) it was prescribed
that "seniority of re-employed officers in a particular rank shall be deter-
mined from the date of their re-employment in that rank."

B During the period 1966 to 1971, a number of ex-ECOs were ap-
pointed as Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force. In the
letter of appointment of many of them, it was specifically mentioned that
"you shall be treated as belonging to the year in which you would have been
appointed or attained the minimum age of entry into the service/post
C concerned or on the date of your joining military service whichever is
earlier." Moreover, the Government of India vide order dated July 5, 1972
had also indicated the principles· which were to be followed in the matter
of fixation of seniority of ex-ECOs who were appointed as Deputy Super-
intendents of Police/Company Commander in the Border Security Force,
D the Central Reserve Police Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and the
Assam Rifles. Under the said principles the service in the Army was to be
counted for the purpose of seniority in the manner indicated therein.
Respondents Nos. 3 to 445 in Civil Appeal No. 4127of1985 are such ECOs
who were absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandants in the Border
Security Force during the period 1966-71 and whose seniority has been
E fixed by taking into account their past service and training period in the
Army. The appellants in the said appeal are officers who were directly
recruited as Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force in the
year 1966-67. They filed a Writ Petition (C.W.P. 701of1978) in the Delhi
High Court wherein they assailed the fixation of seniority of the ex-ECOs
F in the Border Security Force. The said Writ Petition was, however, dis-
missed by a learned Judge of the High Court by Judgment dated Septem-
ber 9, 1983. Civil Appeal No. 4127 of 1985 is directed against the said
judgment of the learned Single Judge. ·

The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in their letter
G dated September 6, 1972 addressed to the· Army Headquarters, Military .l.
Secretary's Branch (MS) intimated that the Government has constituted a
Special Selection Board for recruitment of released SSRC Officers/ECOs
to the Posts of Assistant Commandants/Company Commanders (Deputy
SP) in the BSF, CRPF, Assam Rifles, etc. under the Chairmanship of the
H Director General, Border Security Force. In the said letter it was stated
I

I

RAVI PAULv. U.0.1. [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 429

that few_ applications have been received from SSRC Officers who haye A
since been releaf.ed or who havr;: not been placed in an acceptable grade
for the grant of Permament Regular Commission in the Army. By said
order it was requested that wid1;:1 publicity be given so that SSRC Officers
who were not aware of the constitution of the Board and are not placed
in an acceptable grade for Pe:rmanent Regular Commission may get the
opportun_ity of being considered for appointment in the para-military forces
B
under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Army Headquarters were re-
quested to inform this categ;ory of officers serving in various forma-
tions/units that they may forward their applications direct to the Deputy
Director (Organization), Directorate General, Border Security Force latest
by October 10, 1972. In the saJd letter it was further stated:- c
''The circular issued by you may also inform the applicants that the
service they have re.ndered as SSRCOs will not count towards
seniority and pensio11, if selected, in the para-military forces."

The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 146 of 1992 filed in this Court D
under Article 32 of the Constitution are SSCOs who, after release from the
Indian Army, were appoint•ed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF after
selection by the Special Selection Board during the years 1974 to 1978. In
their case, the letters of appointment expressly stated : -

"Your pay will be fixed at the appropriate stage of the aforesaid
E
scale considering your age at the time of your Army Commission
and your Army Commissioned service. Your Army service shall
not count for seniority or promotion in BSF."

While their Army service was taken into consideration in the matter of F
fixation of pay they were not given the benefit of their past service in the
Army for the purpose of seniority or promotion.

It appears that ECOs appointed in the CRPF during the same period
were also not given the 'benefit of their past service in the Army in the
matter of fixation of seniority. A Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 44 of 1975, G
U.B.S. Teotia & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) was filed in the Delhi High
Court by the ECOs in the CRPF claiming that they were Army Officers
withiti the meaning of 'Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules and that they were
entitled to add the length of their unbroken Army Service towards seniority
in the CRPF. The said writ.petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court H
y
I

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A by judgment dated February 6, ~978 on the view that ECOs were not Army
Officers and, therefore, they were not entitled to avail their past Army )4...

service. Civil Appeal No. 1389 of 1979 (U.B.S. Teotia & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors.) filed by the ECOs in this Court against the said decision of -.
the High Court, was disposed of by this Court by Order dated December
5, 1984 wherein it was observed :-
B
"It is now agreed by all parties. that they were Army Officers."
1.
On that view, the Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh
decision of the issues involved on the basis that the appellants in the said
c appeal were Army Officers. The matter was thereafter considered by the
High Court and by judgment dated September 2, 1985, a Division Bench
of the High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioners
in the said writ petition, viz., the released ECOs, were entitled to get ,~

benefit of their past service in the Army on the view that since the ECOs
were Army Officers, they were entitled to protection of Rule 8(b) of CRPF
D .~
Rules which governs the inter se seniority of superior officers in the CRPF.
The Union of India as well as the direct recruits in the CRPF filed petitions
for special leave to appeal against the said judgment of the Delhi High
Court. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13910 of 1985 (P.J. Shetty & Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors.) was filed by the direct recruits and Special Leave
E Petition (Civil) No. 16911 of 1985 (Union of India & Ors. v. U.B.S. Teotia
& Ors.) was filed by the Union of India. Both these petitions were dismissed
by this Court by order dated January 21, 1986 on the view 'that the
respondents were Army Officers within the meaning of Rule 8 of the CRPF
Rules and they were entitled to add the length of their unbroken service .
F as ECOs and SSCOs for the purpose of reckoning their seniority. In
accordance with the said decision of the Delhi High Court, which was
upheld by this Court, the seniority of ECOs/SSCOs who were absorbed in
the CRPF has been revised and they have been given the benefit of past
service.

G The SSCOs who were absorbed in the BSF filed Writ Petition No.
)..
3469-72 of 1983 (Kanwar M ehar Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) in
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution wherein they claimed that
their service in the Army be counted for the purpose of seniority. In the
said Writ Petitions a counter affidavit was filed wherein reliance was placed
H on the letters of appointment showing that past Army service shall not
RAVIPAULv. U.0.1.(S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 431

count towards seniority and promotion in the BSF. The said Writ Petitions A
were dismissed by order dated April 6, 1984. After the seniority of the
ECOs/SSCs who were absorbed in the CRPF was revised in 1986, a
representation was submitted by the ECOs/SSCOs who were absorbed in
the BSF for revision of their seniority. The said representation was, how-
ever, rejected on December 4, ·1986 on the view that in the appointment
B
letters it was clearly stated that Army service will not count towards
seniority and promotion in the BSF. Thereupon, the said officers filed a
Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 1024 of 1988) in the .Delhi High Court
wherein they relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in U.B.S.
Teotia's case (supra) which had been upheld by this Court and claimed
that they were also entitled to the benefit of their Army service as was given C
to the officers who had been absorbed in the CRPF. The said Writ Petition
was dismissed by the High Court by judgment dated November 16, 1990
on the ground that it was barred by res judfr:ata in view of the dismissal of
... the earlier Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in this
Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, D
petitioners filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1802. of 1991 (Ravi Paul
v. Union of India & Ors.) wherein the Court passed the following order on
July 30, 1991 :-

"Mr. Harish Salve, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that
notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court E
on the ground of res judicata he would submit a detailed repre-
sentation before the Government on the merits of this case. He
may do so within two ·weeks from today. The private respondents
may, if they so desire, file counter to the representation. Tl!e
Government will decide the representation on merits after hearing F
the parties within four months from today. The speaking order so
passed be placed before this Court and be given to parties also.
List the .special leave petition on December 4, 1991."

The petitioners submitted a detailed. representation on August 12,
1991 ...fhe said representation was rejected by order dated January 13, G·
1992. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, Writ Petition No. 146 of 1992
has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution wherein it has been
prayed that the order dated January 13, 1992 be quashed and it be declared
that the petitioners are entitled to add the length of their unbroken service
rendered as Short Service Commissioned Officers towards seniority in the H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 s.C.R.

A BSF as per J3..ule 8 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. In view of the development
that had taken place in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on
July 30, 1991, viz., the filing of the representation and the rejection of the
same by order dated January 13, 1992 which is the subject matter of
challenge of Writ Petition No. 146 of 1992, this Court on March 27, 1992
B disposed of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1802of1991 with the following observation:-

"In view of this development the Special Leave Petition arising out
of the impugned judgment and order of the Delhi High Court
dated 16.11.1990 does not survive and we, therefore, dispose it of
accordingly without prejudice to the rights and contentions which
c the parties have raised in the substantive Writ Petition filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution."

We will first take up Writ Petition (Civil) No. 146 of 1992 filed by
the SSCOs who were absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandants in the
D BSF during the period 1974-78 after being selected by the Special Selection
...
Board. The petitioners in their Writ Petition have challenged the fixation
of their seniority and have claimed that they should be given the benefit of
their past service in the Army. The basis for the claim of the petitioners .is
that they were absorbed/appointed in the BSF in accordance with the
provisions contained in Rule 113(3)(iv-A) of the CRPF Rules and, like
E other officers who were absorbed in the CRPF, the seniority of the
petitioners is governed by Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules and that in view of
"the decision of the Delhi High Court dated September 2, 1985 in Shri
U.B.S. Teotia & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which has been upheld by
this Court by Order dated January 21, 1986, the petitioners are also entitled
F to have their seniority fixed by taking into account their past service as
SSCOs in the Army. The said plea of the petitioners raises two questions:-
(1) Was the absorption and appointment of the petitioners as Assistant
Commandants in the BSF in 1975-78 under Rule 113(3)(iv-A) of the CRPF
Rules? and (2) Is the seniority of the petitioners governed by Rule 8 of the
CRPF Rules?
G
As regards the absorption/appointment of the petitioners a:s Assis-
tant Commandants in the BSF during the period 1974-78 it has already
been noticed that initially, i.e., before the enactment of the BSF Act,
appointment of superior officers in the BSF was governed by Rule 113 of
H the CRPF Rules. The enactment of the BSF Act in 1968 brought about a
RAVI PAULv. U.0.1. (S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 433

change. The said Act, in Section 4, provides for the constitution of the BSF A
and in sub-Section (2) of Section 4 it is prescribed that subject to the
..-4' provision of the BSF Act, the Force (BSF) should be constituted in such
manner as may be pescribed and the condition of service of the members
'• of the Force shall be such as may be prescribed. In sub-Section (1) of
Section 141 power has been conferred on the Central Government to make
B
rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. In
sub-Section (2) of Section 141 it has been specifically provided that such
rules may, inter alia, provide for the emolment of the persons to the Force
,., and the recruitment of the other members of the Force [clause (b)] and
the conditions of service (including deductions from pay and allowances)
of the members of the Force [clause (c)]. It ·would thus appear that after c
the enactment of the BSF Act in 1968, the CRPF Rules ceased to have
application in the matter of recruitment to the BSF as well as the condi-
tions of service of the members of the said force and the BSF was governed
by the provisions of the BSF Act only. The BSF Act does not provide for
continuing the applicability of CRPF Rules to the BSF. On the other hand, D
we find that in the matter of recruitment to the post of Assistant Cornman-
dant, the Central Government made BSF Recruitment Rules on December
8, 1969 which continued in force till they were repealed on November 23,
1973. Thereafter, recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant in the
BSF was governed by the executive order dated January 16; 1974 issued by E
the Government of India. In law it was permissible do so because it is well
settled that it is not obligatory to make rules for recruitment etc. before a
service can be constituted or a post created or filled and the Government,
in exercise of its executive power, can make appointments in the absence
-.It of rules. [See : B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1966] 3
F
SCR 682 at p. 686].

The position which emerges is that the CRPF Rules, which governed
recruitment to the BSF, ceased to have an application after the enactment
of the BSF Act, 1968 and , thereafter, the matter of recruitment to the post
of Assistant Commandant was first governed by the BSF Recruitment G
Rules and after the repeal of the said Rules in 1973 the said recruitment
was governed by the order of Government of India dated January 16, 1974.
The repeal of the BSF Recruitment Rules in 1973 would not have the effect
of reviving the applicability of CRPF Rules to the BSF. We are, therefore,
of the view that absorption/appointment of SSCOs on the post of Assisstant H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A Commandant in the BSF after selection by the Selection Board during the
period 1974-78 was not made under the provisions of Rule 113(3)(iv-A) of
the CRPF Rules, as claimed by the petitioners, but was made under the
provisions of the BSF Act and the executive order of the G,overnment of
India dated January 16, 1974.

B As regards the applicability of Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules which
governs the inter se seniority of-superior officers it may be stated that Rule
116 of CRPF Rules (which falls in Chapter XV introduced in 1966)
contains the following provision :-

C "Rule 116. Application of rules to B.S.F.

(1) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply only to the members
of Border Security Force and nothing contained in Rule 105 or
106 or 108 shall apply to the members of any such force.

D (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-Rule (1), the provisions of
the Central Reserve Police Force other than this Chapter shall
apply to any member of the Border Security Force as it applies to
any other member of the Central Reserve Police Force."

In view of of the said provision, Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules was
E applicable to the officers who were recruited to the BSF under Rule 113
of the CRPF Rules. The said Rule, however, ceased to have application to
the BSF after the enactment of the BSF Act and the publication of the BSF
Rules. In the matter of conditions of service of the members of the BSF,
Section 4(2) of the BSF Act provides that "the conditions of service of
F members of the Force shall be such as may be prescribed." The expression
'prescribed' is defined in Section 2(S) of the BSF Act to mean "prescribed
by rules made under this Act." Section 141(2)(c) of the BSF Act empowers
the Central Government to make rules providing for conditions of service
of members of the BSF. In Rule 14(2) of the BSF Rules it is provided that
G matters relating to inter se seniority of persons belonging to the same ranks
shall be determined in accordance with such rules as may be made in this
behalf. The BSF Seniority Rules were such rules which were made in 1978.

From the aforementioned provisions contained in the BSF Act and
BSF Rules it is evident that the conditions of service, including seniority of
H members of the BSF, is to be governed by the provisions of the rules made
RAVI PAULv. U.O.I. [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 435

under the BSF Act and not by the CRPF Rules and, therefore, Rule 8(b) A
of the CRPF Rules which governs seniority of superior officers in CRPF .
ceased to have application to the BSF on the enactment of BSF Act and
thereafter the seniority was to be governed by the rules made under the
BSF Act and till such rules were made it was open to the Central Govern-
ment to regulate such seniority by orders. The seniority of the petitioners
in Writ Petition No. 146 of 1992 and other ECOs/SSCOs who were ab- B
sorbed/appointed in the BSF after the enactment of BSF Act in 1968, is,
therefore, not governed by Rule 8(b) of CRPF Rules but is governed by
the provisions of the BSF Act and the Rules made thereunder and in the
absence of such rules by the executive orders issued by the Government of
India in that regard. As pointed out earlier rules regarding seniority of C
officers in the BSF were made for the first time in December 9, 1978 when
the . BSF Seniority Rules were published. Till theri, there was no rule
regarding fixation of seniority of officers in the BSF and the said matter
was governed by executive orders only. One such executive order is con-
tained in the letter dated September 6, 1972 addressed by the Government D
of India to Army Headquarters, Military Secretary Branch (MS) wherein
it was specifically mentioned that service rendered as SSCOs could not
count towards seniority and pension. This matter was further clarified in
the letter of appointment of the petitioners wherein it was specifically
mentioned "Your Army service shall· not count for seniority or promotion
in BSF." Even in the BSF Seniority Rules made in 1978 no provision has E
been made for giving the benefit of past Army Service to SSCOs who were
absorbed/appointed in the BSF. Rule 3(1) which provides for fixation in
inter se senio~ity among office.rs holding the same rank, the following
provision has been made in clause (v) :-
F
"Seniority of re-employed officers in a particular rank shall be
determined from the date of their re-employment in that rank."

We are, therefore, unable to hold that the seniority of SSCOs who
were absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandant in the BSF on selec- G
tion by the SpeCial Selection Board during the period 1974- 78 is governed
by Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules. In our opinion, the seniority of such
officers must be governed by the provisions contained in the BSF Act and
Rules made thereunder and in the absence of rules by executive orders
issued by the Central Government in that regard. H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A Even if we proceed on the basis that Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules
was applicable to the petitioners, we cannot say that the said Rule enables
the petitioners to count their service in the Army as SSCOs for the purpose
of seniority in the BSF. The provisions governing seniority of superior
officers are contained in clause (b) of Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules and the
B relevent provision is that contained in sub-clause (i) which was as follows:-

(b) The inter se seniority of superior officers shall be determined
as under:

(i) An Army Officer shall maintain his seniority as between
Army Officer, within a particular qmk. Similarly, an Indian Police
c Service Officers shall maintain his seniority between himself and
other Indian Police Service Officer. For purpose of inter se
seniority between non-Army and Army Officers of equivalent rank,
substantive incumbent shall be senior to officiating or temporary
officers, their inter se seniority depending on the dates of their
D continued unbroken service in that rank. The inter se seniority of
officiating or temporary officers shall be determined by their
continuous length of service in that tank. An Army Officer re-
employed in the Central Reserve Police Force shall maintain his
Army Seniority between Army Officers within a particular rank.
E The said provision is a composite provision governing seniority of
various categories of officers. It can be split up into following components:-

(1) An Army Officer shall maintain his seniority as between Army
Officers within a particular rank.
F (2) An Indian J,>olice Service Officer shall maintain his seniority
between himself and other Indian Police Service Officers.

(3) Between non-Army and Army Officers of equivalent rank inter
se;
G
(a) substantive incumbent shall be senior to officiating or tem-
porary ~fficers.

(b) Amongst substantive incumbents inter se seniority shall
depend on the dates of their continuous unbroken service in that
H rank.
RA VI PAUL v. U.0.1. (S.C. AG RAW AL, J.) 437

(c) The inter se seniority of officiating or temporary officers A
shall be determined by their continuous iength of service in that
rank.

(4) Re-employed Army Officer shall maintain his Army seniority
between Army Officers within a particular rank.
B
It would thus appear that Rule 8(b)(i) of the CRPF Rules only
governs the seniority as between Army Officers inter se, Amry Officers and
re-employed Army Officers inter se, Indian Police Service Officers inter se,
and non-Army and Army Officers of equivalent rank inter se. The expres-
sion "rank" in this Rule means the rank in CRPF. There is nothing in Rule C
8(b)to indicate that the earlier Army service of an Army Officer or a
re-employed Army Officer is to be counted for the purpose of seniority in
CRPF. Since Rule 8(b)(i) is silent in this regard executive instructions can
be issued by the Central Government for the purpose of giving benefit of
Army service to Army Officers or re-employed Army Officers. With that D
end in view the Government of India, in its letter dated July 5, 1972
addressed to the Director General BSF and CRPF as well as LG. (ITBP)
and Secretary (Home), Arunachal Pradesh Administration, has laid down
certain principles for the purpose of fixation of seniority of ex-ECOs
appointed in the BSF, CRPF, ITBP and Assam Rifles. The said principles
were, however, applicable only to ex-ECOs who were absorbed/appointed E
in these forces during the period 1967 to 1970. In U.B.S. Teotia & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. (supra) the Delhi High Court has construed Rule 8
of the CRPF Rules to mean that Army Officers who are re-employed or
Army Officers who come on deputation, have to retain their original
seniority and will get the benefit of their Army service. We are unable to F
read Rule 8 as having such an effect. In our opinion, the said Rule when
it says that "an Army Officer shall maintain his seniority as between Army
Officers within a particular rank and an Army Officer re-employed in the
Central Reserve Police Force shall maintain his Army Service between
Army Officers within a particular rank" only means that amongst Army
Officers inter_se and a re-employed Army Officer and an Army Officer inter G
se their seniority to a particular rank in the CRPF would be fixed on the
basis of their seniority in the Army. We have not found any provision in
Rule 8(b) which enables an Army Officer or a re-employed Army Officer
to count his Army service for the purpose of seniority in the CRPF. We
are, therefore, unable to uphold the decision of Delhi High Court in U.B.S. H
y

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R. .

A Teotia & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). For the same reasons the
observations in the order dated January 21, 1986 passed by this Court in ~
special leave petitions arising out of Delhi High Court decision in U.B.S.
Teotia's case (supra) that "the respondents are the Army Officers within
the meaning of Rule 8 of the CRPF Rules and they are entitled to add the
length of their unbroken service as ECOs and· SSCOs for the purpose of
B reckoning their seniority" cannot be regarded as based on a correct inter-
pretation of RUie 8 of the CRPF Rule&. The said observations must,
therefore, be confined to that particular case only. J_

It has, however, been contended by learned counsel for the
C petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 146of1992) that the said petitioners were
absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF after being
selected for appointment be the Special Selection Board which had also
selected the SSCOs for absorption in the CRPF and that there is no
rational basis for treating those SSCOs thus selected by the Special Selec-
D tion Board, who were all similarly situate prior to their selection, differently
in the matter of fixation of seniority merely on the fortuitous circumstance
that out of them those who were assigned to the CRPF, would get the
benefit of their past srvice ir. the Army, while those like the petitioners,
who were assigned to the BSF would be denied the said benefit. In our
view, there is no merit in this contention. The CRPF and the BSF are two
E distinct forces governed by separate statutory provisions. The fact that in
the CRPF, the benefit of past service in the Army has been given to SSCOs
who were absorbed/appointed after selection by the Special Selection
Board during the period 1974-78 on account of the provisions of Rule 8(b)
of CRPF Rules, as construed by the Delhi High Court, does not mean that
F the said benefit should also be made available to the petitioners who were
absorbed/appointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF, though in the
BSF there is no rule similar to Rule 8(b) of the CRPF Rules which confers
this benefit. On the other hand, the said benefit has been expressly denied
to the officers who were so absorbed/appointed, inasmuch as prior to the
recruitment, the Government of India had clearli ·indicated in the letter
G dated September 6, 1972 that service rendered as SSRCOs will not count
towards seniority and pension. This stipulation was also incorporated in
the letter of appointment of the petitioners when they were absorbad/ap-
pointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF. In the said letter it is
expressly stated that the benefit of the past service in the Army would not
H be available for the purpose of seniority. From the letter of the Government
RAVIPAULv. U.0.1. [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 439

of India dated September 6, 1972 it appears that this policy was for A
recruitment of released ECOs/SSRCOs as Assistant Commandants/Com-
pany Commanders (Dy. S.P.) in the BSF, CRPF, Assam Rifles, etc. Merely
because the said policy which was applicable to all released SSCOs who
were to be absorbed/appointed in the various para military forces of the
Government of India could not be given effect in CRPF on account of Rule B
8(b) of the CRPF Rules, would not mean that the said policy in its
application to the BSF, where there is no such legal impediment, suffers
from the vice of discrimination.
. ·~
It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners (in
Writ Petition No. 146of1992 that ECOs who were absorbed/appointed to C
the BSF during the period of 1967-71 have been given the benefit of
counting their past service in the Army for the purpose of seniority and
that there is no reason why similar benefit should not have been extended
to SSCOs, like the petitioners, who were absorbed/appointed to the BSF
during the period 1974-78 and that the denial of such benefit to the D
petitioners results in arbitrary and invidious discrimination and denial of
the right to equality guaranteed under the Constitution. We are unable to
agree. The ECOs who were absorbed/appointed to the BSF during the
period 1967-71 had joined the Army during the emergency in the wake of
the Chinese aggression. By joining the Army when the country needed their
services they had made a sacrifice. Keeping in view the sacrifice made by E
them, the Government of India evolved a policy wherunder they were given
certain benefit of their Army Service for counting their seniority on re-
employment in public services after their release from the Army. Moreover,
they were absorbed in the BSF at a time when there was need for com-
petent officers in the BSF and in order to attract such officers in the BSF F
it was considered necessary to give the benefit of the service of the Army
for the purpose of seniority in the BSF to the officers who were ab-
sorbed/appointed in the BSF during the period 1967-71. The SSCOs had
joined the Army as a career after the emergency resulting from the Chinese
aggression was over. When they were· absorbed/appointed to the BSF
m
during the period 1974-78 there was a change the policy of the Gover- G
nemnt of India and the benefit of the service in the Army was not to be
given to the SSCOs who were absorbed/appointed in the BSF after release
from the Army. This condition was expressly mentioned in their letters of
appointment and they opted to join the BSF knowing fully well that their
Army service would not becounted for seniority in the BSF. The ECOs who H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A were absorbed/appointed in the BSF during the period 1967-71 and the
SSCOs who were absorbed/appointed in the BSF during the period 1974-78
are officers belonging to two different categories and they cannot be
regarded-as persons similarly situate.

For the reason aforementioned, we find no merit in Writ Petition No.
B 146 of 1992 and it must, therefore, be dismissed.
Civil Appeal No. 4127 of 1985 relates to the fixation of seniority of
ndents Nos. 3 to 445 who are ex-ECOs absorbed/appointed as Assis-
Commandants in the BSF during the period 1966 to 1971 and who
ave been given the benefit of past service and training period in the Army
C for the purpose of seniority in the Cadre of Assistant Commandant in the
BSF. As a result,the said respondents were shown as senior to the appel-
lants who were appointed as Assistant Commandants in the BSF in the
year 1966-67. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants challenging the
fixation of seniority of respondents was rightly dismissed by the High Court
D because in the letters of appointment of ex-ECOs it was expressly stated
that their Army service shall be counted towards seniority. Such a condition
was not prohibited by any provision of the CRPF Rules or BSF Act and
the rules made thereunder. Hence, it cannot be said that the fixation of
seniority of the respondents suffers from any legal infirmity. The appeal is,
E therefore, dismissed.
In the result Writ Petition No. 146 of 1992 as well as Civil Appeal
No. 4127 of 1985 are dismissed. No order as to costs.

A.G. Petition and appeal dismissed.