cannot be accorded different seniority by bifurcating them into two or more separate batches.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are mentioned as under The appellants and companytestant respondents are Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force hereinafter referred to as, BSF .
62, and the one placed at Serial No.
The High Court therefore, companymitted an error by allowing the claim of respondent number1, which opposed the seniority of the officers, for the reason that, if Batch Nos.
16 and 17 are taken together, the officers who, in terms of seniority, were placed at Serial No.5, would be moved to Serial No.
There was another batch that undertook training on 2.7.1993.
11 had moved to Serial No.
17, by filing Writ Petition No.
Respondent number1 challenged the said seniority list in which he was ranked below the officers of Batch No.
1393 of 1999, on the ground that with effect from 15.3.1993, he stood promoted as Assistant Commandant, and that he had also companypleted all requisite training for the same at the B.S.F. Academy, Tekanpur, which had companymenced on 1.2.1993.
The appellants, though had number been impleaded as parties before the High Court, sought permission to file special leave petitions with respect to the said matter, and the same was granted by this Court.
Hence, these appeals.
Thus, such an act has materially adversely affected the seniority of officers even though they were duly selected in the same batch.
The said writ petition filed by respondent number1, was companytested by the Union of India.
The Union of India challenged the aforementioned impugned judgment and order dated 27.7.2001, by filing a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 1.8.2002.
The appellants and respondent number.
4 and 5 are direct recruits, while respondent number1 has been promoted against the quota of 10 per cent posts, that are reserved for Ministerial Cadre posts.
However, the said officers of the second batch, who had joined such training on 2.7.1993, companyld number be ranked higher than him, in the seniority list.
8 had moved to Serial No.
The learned single judge allowed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.7.2001, wherein it was held that respondent number1/petitioner therein, was, in fact, entitled to be ranked in seniority above the officers of Batch No.17, and below the officers of Batch No.16.
The Union of India respondent number2, issued a seniority list dated 18.7.1995, placing respondent number 1 at Serial No.
For instance, the person placed at Serial No.
1863, below all the officers of Batch No.17 and thereafter, a final seniority list of Assistant Commandants was published on 5.7.1996.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.2001, passed by the High Court of Jammu Kashmir at Jammu in SWP No.
1393 of 1999, and judgment and order dated 1.8.2002 passed in LPA No.
275 of 2002.
