Sub Inspector O Tuipa Maram v. Union of India and Ors

1. This writ petition challenges the Recruitment Rules[1] for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD)2 in the Sashastra Seema Bal[3] to the extent it stipulates five years’ regular service as Sub-Inspector (GD) / Inspector (GD) for eligibility to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination[4] for promotion as AC(GD).

2. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess five years’ regular service in the grade of Sub-Inspector (GD)/Inspector (GD) and is not, “RRs” hereinafter “AC(GD)” hereinafter “SSB” hereinafter “LDCE” hereinafter therefore, eligible for ascendency to the post of AC(GD) vide the LDCE for the year 2024.

3. We may note, here, that a common advertisement dated 13 February 2025 has been issued by the Director General, CRPF as the nodal agency conducting recruitments for appointment to the post of AC(GD) in the BSF[5], CRPF[6], ITBP[7] and SSB through LDCE.

4. The column relating to the eligibility conditions, as contained in the said advertisement to the extent relevant, reads thus:

4. Eligibility conditions: The eligibility for AC(GD) through LDCE will be as per the RRs of the respective Forces. It will be the responsibility of respective CAPFs to scrutinize the application accordingly before forwarding it to Nodal Force i.e. CRPF. d) Service The candidate should have completed regular service as on 1st January of particular vacancy year in the rank of Sub-Inspector / Inspector, including period of training, as prescribed in RRs of respective CAPFs. The cut off date for calculation of length of service of candidates for difference vacancy years will be as under:

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                                                      Sl.           Vacancy         Cut off date                   │
│                                                      No.            years                                         │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                      1              2024           01.01.2024                     │
│                                                      2              2025           01.01.2025                     │
│                                                    Candidates should have clean record of service as              │
│                                                    per RRs/prescribed by concerned CAPFs.                         │
│                   5.       Mr. Mishra, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents, on                             │
│                   instructions, accepts that the petitioner would be eligible to compete                          │
│                   5 Border Security Force                                                                         │
│                   6 Central Reserve Police Force                                                                  │
│                   7 Indo Tibetan Border Police                                                                    │
│ Signature Not Verified                                                                                            │
│ Signed By:PRAGYA W.P.(C) 17372/2025                                                                 Page 2 of 6   │
│ ARORA                                                                                                             │
│                   for the vacancies of 2025 pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement.                              │
│                   6.     The controversy is with respect to the petitioner’s eligibility for                      │
│                   being considered in the LDCE against the 2024 vacancies.                                        │
│                   7.     As Column 4 of the advertisement clearly states, the cut off date                        │
│                   for assessing eligibility for the 2024 vacancies of the AC(GD) is 1                             │
│                   January 2024. The candidate is, therefore, required to be qualified as                          │
│                   per the RRs for the SSB, on 1 January 2024.                                                     │
│                   8.     Column 11 of the RRs for the post of AC(GD) in the SSB                                   │
│                   stipulates five years’ regular service as Sub-Inspector (GD) /Inspector                         │
│                   (GD) as qualifying service.                                                                     │
│                   9.     As the petitioner does not possess five years’ regular service as                        │
│                   Sub-Inspector / Inspector on 1 January 2024, he would not be eligible                           │
│                   as per the advertisement to compete against the 2024 vacancies of                               │
│                   AC(GD).                                                                                         │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

13. Mr. Jangra submits that, as the SOP prescribed four years of regular service as on the 1st day of January of the vacancy year, the stipulation in the RRs to the effect that five years of regular service was required by the candidate was illegal being in violation of the SOP.

14. There are two reasons why this argument cannot be accepted.

(i) RRs are promulgated under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. They take precedence over all other Rules and administrative instructions and can be challenged only if they are in violation of parliamentary legislation. An RR cannot, THEREFORE, be challenged on the ground that it is “SOP” hereinafter contrary to the SOP governing recruitment to that particular post.

(ii) Even otherwise, we do not find any such discrepancy between the stipulation contained in Column 11 of the RRs, in so far as it prescribes qualifications for LDCE to the post of AC (GD) and the stipulation in Para 1.1(a) of the SOP. Para 1.1(a) does not fix an upper limit of four years of service for appointment as AC(GD) by LDCE. All that it says is that the candidate should have completed four years of regular service as on 1 January of the vacancy year. If the RRs were to prescribe a lesser service than four years, it might have been possible to contend that it was contrary to the SOP. The RRs instead prescribes more than four years of service by requiring five years of regular service as on the 1st day of January of the vacancy year. This stipulation cannot, therefore, be said to be contrary to Clause 1.1(a).

15. That said, we reiterate that, even if the RRs were to be treated as contrary to Clause 1.1(a) of the SOP, that would not constitute a basis to strike down the RRs.

16. Mr. Jangra has also sought to point out that, in previous years, only four years’ regular service in the grade was required and that, in many other forces such as ITBP, CRPF, etc., only four years’ regular service in the grade of Sub-Inspector/Inspector for ascendency as AC/GD vide LDCE is required.

17. There is no principle, cast in crystal, to the effect that the prescribed eligibility qualifications must be the same across Forces.

18. It is well settled that prescription of eligibility qualifications, for recruitment to any post, or grade, is an administrative exercise and that Courts should not tinker with such stipulations unless they are found to be manifestly arbitrary, patently illegal or unconstitutional.