Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
Directorate Of Publicity And Public Relations And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Asha Sharma – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11250 of 2017
Decided On : 15-05-2026
For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Tiwary, CGSC, Mr. Soumava Karmakar and Ms. Jyoti Bajaj, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Ritika Chawla, Adv.
An appointment is classified as direct recruitment rather than promotion when the zone of consideration is open to all departmental candidates fulfilling educational and training criteria, rather than being restricted to a specific feeder cadre. Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Review is not an appeal in disguise - There must be an error apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference - Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or re-hear the matter on merits. (Paras 4, 9)
(B) Service Law - Appointment - Mode of appointment - Where the zone of consideration for a post is not confined to a specific feeder cadre but is open to all departmental candidates possessing prescribed educational qualifications and training, such appointment signifies the nature of direct recruitment rather than a mere promotion. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The controversy involved a dispute over the classification of an appointment to a specific post as either a promotion or a direct recruitment, which affected eligibility for financial upgradation benefits under service schemes. The petitioners contended that the previous order of the court failed to correctly interpret the recruitment rules and that the determination of the appointment nature was erroneous.
Findings of Court:
The court rejected the review petition, observing that the recruitment rules allowed for the appointment of any departmental candidate meeting the requisite criteria, thereby taking the character of a direct entry. The court affirmed that its previous judgment required no interference as no error was apparent on the face of the record.
Issues: (i) Whether the judgment sought to be reviewed contains an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) Whether the appointment to the post in question qualifies as direct recruitment or promotion under the applicable rules.
Ratio Decidendi: An error apparent on the face of the record is a prerequisite for a review. Where the criteria for appointment to a post are broad and inclusive of all departmental personnel rather than constrained to a specific feeder hierarchy, the appointment is properly characterized as direct recruitment, entitling the incumbent to subsequent service benefits.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay granted for review petition filing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. assessment of recruitment rules and eligibility for acp benefits. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. direct recruitment vs promotion under ambiguous recruitment rules. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
CM APPL. 49744/2024
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 462 days in filing the review petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
3. The application stands disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 317/2024, CM APPL. 49743/2024
4. This petition has been filed by the original petitioners in the writ petition seeking review of the order dated 09.02.2023 whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition by stating in paragraphs 10 onwards as under:-
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, there is no dispute that the respondent was initially appointed as LDC w.e.f. June 30, 1970. She was further appointed as IBM Typist on April 9, 1975 under the recruitment rules which stipulated the mode of appointment as direct appointment, failing which deputation. respondent was appointed as IBM Typist by way of departmental test.
11. No doubt, the DoP&T had opined that the appointment of the respondent under the recruitment rules was ab initio irregular, but the fact remains that the respondent continued to hold the post even thereafter. She was further promoted to higher post. For all purposes, her appointment as IBM Typist being on April 9, 1975 under the recruitment rules as a direct recruit and the fact that persons appointed subsequent to her as IBM Typist. have been granted the benefit of ACP on completion of 24 years of service as IBM Typist, the respondent has been rightly granted the benefit by the Tribunal.
12. In this regard, our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent to page 140 of the paper book wherein the respondent has given the career record of two juniors namely Vinod Kumar Sharma and Pawan Kumar Bansal in the following manner:
| Asha Sharma (respondent) | Vinod Kumar | Pawan Kumar Bansal | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointed on temporary capacity as LDC in the pay scale of 110-180. | 30.06.1970 | Nil | Nil |
| Direct appointments as IBM Typist in pay - scale 330-560 as per draft RR's | 09.04.1975 | 11.03.1976 | 25.03.1976 |
| Promotion as layout artist in the pay scale of RS 4500-7000 | 27.05.1994 | Nil | Nil |
| 1st ACP as per 5th Pay Commission w.e.f 09.08.1999 in the scale of rs 4500- 125-7000 | Not granted | Granted on 09.08.1999 | Granted on 09.08.1999 |
| 2nd ACP as per 5th pay commission in pay scale 5000-150-8000 | Not granted | Granted on 01.04.2000 | Granted on 01.04.2000 |
| Upgraded Scale 6500-200-10500 | Not granted | w.e.f. 01.04.2000 vide order dated 08.06.2010 | w.e.f. 01.04.2000 vide order dated 08.06.2010 |
| As per 6th CPC scale of 6500-200-10500 fixed as 9300-34800+GP 4600 | 5200-20200+Gp 2800 | Rs. 9300-34800+GP 4600 | 9300-34800+GP 4600 |
| 3rd MACP as per 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.09.2008 in the pay scale of rs 9300-34800+GP 4800 | Granted On 01.09.2008 in the pay scale 9300-34800+GP 4200 | Granted on 01.09.2008 in the scale rs 9300-34800+GP 4800 | Granted on 01.09.2008 in the scale rs 9300-34800+GP 4800. |
13. Even the reliance placed by Mr. Digpaul on the office order dated April 9, 1975 and subsequent undertaking given by the respondent, stating that her appointment as IBM Typist is temporary and her services are liable to be terminated without any notice, would not help the case of the petitioners, as concedingly the respondent has not been reverted rather, she continued to hold that post till such time she was promoted to higher post. It is quiet late in the day for the petitioners to deny the benefit of ACP as her appointment as direct recruit was in the year 1975.
14. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the impugned judgment needs no interference. The petition is dismissed.”
5. The submission of Mr. Amit Tiwary, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners is primarily that this Court has erred in not considering the fact that
