In Brief
Direct recruits and promotees were both appointed as Sub Inspectors in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The question was whether direct recruits appointed on October 5, 2009 should rank senior to promotees who commenced training on November 23, 2009. The Supreme Court held that 'date of appointment' under Rule 8(e) of the CRPF Rules means the date a candidate actually assumes charge after completing formalities, not the date of allotment or offer. Since direct recruits only completed enrolment formalities (health certificate, oath, reporting) in January 2010 before training, they were appointed later than promotees. Therefore, promotees ranked senior. The Court distinguished earlier judgments as inapplicable as they involved different rules, services, or contexts. The appeals were dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.