Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, and bypassing them for adjudication in High Court is generally not permitted unless in exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to rescind or recall paragraph 5 (xiv) of Notification dated 19.09.2016 under the subject `Personnel Policy for Group `A' S & T Officers of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and its Organization', to the extent it uses the expression `prior to the issue of this policy Notification', as unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mandamus is also sought directing the Respondents to rescind and recall the Circular dated 10.12.2021, issued by Respondent No.1/Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. In a nutshell, the grievance ventilated in the writ petition is against the discrimination created between those officers, who are promoted as Scientist-B prior to the cut-off date of 19.09.2016 in the policy and those promoted after, which has allegedly impacted further promotions.

2. Factual expose to the extent relevant and as averred in the writ petition are that Petitioner is an Association comprising of about 3500 members posted in various Districts of different States of India in various posts/categories under Respondent No. 1. National Informatics Centre (`NIC') was established in 1976, with the key mandate to work as technology partner of the Government, design and develop IT systems, provide ICT infrastructure to the Government and explore and advise on the use of emerging technologies. Petitioner is an All India NIC S&T Officers' Association, registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860.

3. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition pertains to an O.M. dated 19.09.2016, issued by Respondent No.1 under the subject `Personnel Policy for Group `A' S&T Officers of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and its Organization'. The policy relates to promotion of Group `A' S&T Officers to different posts from Scientist-B to Scientist-G, appertaining to different Pay Bands and Grade Pay, subject to minimum residency period. Paragraph 5 lays down the assessment and promotion process and paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 provide the criteria and conditions of promotions at different levels. What is, however, the bone of contention between the parties to the lis is clause (xiv) of paragraph 5 which is as follows:

"(xiv) This policy is applicable only to those S&T officers who are initially appointed on Group A S&T posts. In addition to it, officers initially appointed on Below Group A S&T Posts and subsequently promoted as Group A S&T officer as per the provisions of Below Group A S&T Personnel Policy, prior to issue of this policy notification, shall also be covered under this policy."

4. The grievance put forth by the Petitioner is that the stipulation `prior to the issue of this policy notification', completely blocks promotion to those officers who are posted as Scientist-B in the Group `A' S&T Officers' category to the post of Scientist-C and upwards. Pithily put, according to the Petitioner the policy is discriminatory and makes an irrational, unintelligible differentia between one set of officers, who were promoted to the post of Scientist-B, prior to 19.09.2016 and the other set of officers who were promoted post the said date, for the purpose of promotion to Scientist-C, notwithstanding the fact that both the set of officers possess same qualifications, assessment performance and residency experience. The heartburn arises from the fact that the O.M. da