Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
Dr. Atul Pandey & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6651 of 2026, W.P.(C) 6658 of 2026
Decided On : 01-06-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhaya Kumar Behera, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms. Aditi Gupta and Ms. Lavanya Bhardwaj, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, CGSC, Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Adv and Mr. C P Vinod Kumar, Under Secretary. Mrs Avnish Ahlawat, SC GNCTD Services, Mr Nitesh Kumar Singh and Mr Amit Yadav, Advs. Mr Ravinder Agarwal, Adv for UPSC.
Under the proviso to the Constitution regarding service conditions, executive authority holds valid power to frame recruitment rules and restructure cadres absent specific legislation. Such policy-driven administrative changes are generally immune from judicial interference, provided they are neither arbitrary nor in direct violation of law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution - Article 309 - Recruitment and conditions of service - Power to frame rules regulating service conditions vests in the executive delegate until specific legislation is enacted. Policy decisions concerning cadre restructuring, creation, and abolition of posts fall within the executive domain and are amenable to judicial review only in cases of manifest arbitrariness, mala fide, or constitutional violation. (Paras 12.8-12.17)
(B) Interlocutory Matters - Stay of promotional assessment - Assessments should generally proceed to avoid administrative deadlock, provided the validity of such actions remains subject to the final outcome of the litigation and participants are duly informed of their conditional status. (Paras 19, 23)
Facts of the case:
Officers from an administrative cadre challenged the amendment of recruitment rules and the restructuring of a subordinate secretariat service, claiming that the modifications lacked legal competence and directly infringed upon their promotional opportunities and cadre integrity.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the administrative delegate maintained the authority to frame rules under the constitutional framework in the absence of governing legislation. The challenge regarding the procedural transformation of posts was deemed to fall within the ambit of executive policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the executive delegate was competent to frame recruitment rules and restructure posts in the absence of a specific legislative enactment. 2. Whether the promotion processes should be stayed pending the final disposal of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: Rules of service framed under constitutional delegated authority occupy the field until a specific legislative act supersedes them. Policy-based restructuring is reserved for the executive, and the court will not substitute its view unless the decision is perverse. Balancing administrative functionality with pending litigation justifies allowing promotion processes to occur conditionally, safeguarding against irreparable loss if the petitioners were to prevail.
Result: Applications dismissed; promotional assessments allowed to proceed subject to the final determination of the petitions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cadre restructure and abolition of posts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. historical context of cadre review and stagnation mitigation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. competence of the lieutenant governor under article 309. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. administrative necessity for restructuring and service cadre independence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 21) |
| 5. judicial restraint regarding dpc pending final petition outcome. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
CM APPL. 32760/2026 in W.P.(C) 6651/2026
CM APPL. 32782/2026 in W.P.(C) 6658/2026
1. By this order, we shall decide the applications filed by the petitioners for stay. The applications with identical prayers have been filed by the petitioners seeking stay of “Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 (GNCTDSS Rules, 2024) or stay DPC for the post of Senior Scale (GNCTDSS) in DASS cadre”, which are reproduced as under: -
“(a) allow the present application;
(b) stay the operation of the impugned Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 (GNCTDSS Rules, 2024) or stay DPC for the post of Senior Scale (GNCTDSS) in DASS cadre during the pendency of the present writ petition;
(c) any other order or direction that this Hon'ble court deems just and proper, keeping in consideration the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in the larger interest of justice and equity.”
2. The challenge in the above writ petitions is to the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in two OAs’ being O.A.No.4107/2023 and O.A. No.474/2025 filed by the petitioners herein.
3. The challenge in the OAs’ before the Tribunal, as noted was primarily to the action of the respondents to abolish nearly 217 posts meant for the Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshwadeep, Daman & Diu, and Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Civil Services (DANICS) and Indian Administrative Services (IAS) cadre and to make them available to the Grade I officers of the Delhi Administrative Subordinate Secretariat Service (DASS) (now GNCTDSS).
4. The grounds of challenge are primarily, the action is in violation of statutory Recruitment Rules, procedure prescribed for abolition/creation of group A posts and the DoPT guidelines.
5. The petitioners herein are officers in DANICS, which was constituted in the year 1962. They are directly recruited through Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) during the years 2020-22. The recruitment to DANICS is through direct recruitment and promotion (which is from the DASS Grade-1 Cadre with three-year regular service) in the ratio of 50:50.
6. It is the case of the petitioners and contended by Mr. Parag P. Tripathi and Mr. Abhaya Kumar Behera, learned Senior Counsels’ appearing in both petitions that the cadre strength of DANICS was determined in 2009. However, no cadre review was conducted for the past 17 years. In this regard, they have given reference to the orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court from time to time in the litigation initiated by the DANICS for cadre review.
7. It is noted from the record that, in the year 2015, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) approved the proposal of the GNCTD for upgradation of pay scale of Grade-1 DASS Cadre from level-7 to level-8. At this stage, it may be stated that the case of the respondents/officers belonging to DASS cadre is that the petitioners had not objected to the upgradation of their pay scale from level-7 to level-8.
8. According to Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Behera, Grade-1 DASS Cadre Officers though have been given higher pay level, but the same had no bearing on seniority or for that matter promotion to DANICS Cadre. In other words, the pay upgradation as granted to Grade-1 DASS officers, was only personal to them.
9. Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Behera submitted that the respondents/ Grade-1 DASS cadre officers started
