Jharkhand HC Ranks Earlier-Confirmed Direct-Recruit SIs Above LDCE Appointees, Excluding Training And Probation From Seniority

The dispute concerned inter-se seniority between Sub-Inspectors directly recruited under Advertisement No. 05/2017 and candidates appointed through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) under Advertisement No. 09/2017.

Although the LDCE candidates received appointment letters on 6 March 2018 and direct recruits were appointed on 6 August 2018, the direct recruits completed training and were confirmed with effect from 6 August 2021, while the LDCE candidates completed training and were confirmed with effect from 2 August 2022.

The State’s final seniority list dated 9 September 2024 placed LDCE candidates above the direct recruits.

The direct recruits challenged that list in these consolidated writ petitions.

Rule 653 of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides for Sub-Inspector appointments by direct recruitment and promotion; Rules 659 and 681, read with Appendix 93, prescribe the relevant promotion and training requirements.

The Jharkhand State Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Rules, 2016, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution read with Section 46(3) of the Police Act, 1861, established the LDCE route, required training and probation, and provided that matters not covered by those Rules would be governed by the Police Manual.

Rule 689(c) provides that seniority is counted from the date Sub-Inspectors were “actually recruited or promoted against permanent post”; Rule 682(d) states that training and probation count as service for pension.

Applying Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 765, and CIT v. Doom Dooma India Ltd., (2009) 4 SCC 427, the Court held that “actually” denotes an event that has truly and effectively occurred, rather than a merely notional or provisional state.

The Court also recognised the general principle that seniority ordinarily runs from initial appointment, but held that a specific governing rule displaces that default principle.

The Court held that LDCE entry was not ordinary promotion from the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, but “appointment by promotion” under a distinct recruitment route created by the 2016 Rules; Rule 689(c) therefore governed seniority between LDCE candidates and direct recruits.

It interpreted Rule 682(d) as limiting the counting of training and probation to pension, and read it with Rule 689(c) to exclude that period from seniority.

In the Court’s view, actual recruitment against a permanent post occurred upon confirmation after successful completion of the prescribed training, not upon provisional appointment.

Since the direct recruits were confirmed in 2021 and the LDCE candidates in 2022, the direct recruits were entitled to seniority over the LDCE candidates.

It quashed the final seniority list dated 9 September 2024 and directed the State to publish a revised list treating direct recruits as senior to LDCE candidates.

A direct recruit whose probation had been extended was to be ranked by reference to the date of confirmation.

The State was directed to complete the exercise within ten weeks; all writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.