Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13502
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J), Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Vijender Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Government of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No. 3359/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sudarshan Ranjan, Mr. Ramesh Rawat
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Anand
The court upheld the legality of the cadre restructuring process in the Forensic Science Laboratory, emphasizing respect for administrative discretion in managing promotions and organizational structure.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Office Order dated 06.06.2024 - Cadre restructuring in Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) challenged - Allegations of mala fide and violation of guidelines of DOP&T and Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that restructuring favored junior officers and impeded promotion avenues for seniority. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 8)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope and limits - The court discussed the boundaries of judicial review concerning administrative actions, emphasizing that it does not sit as an appellate authority and should respect the discretion of administrative bodies. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought relief against an office order initiating cadre restructuring in FSL, claiming it unjustly favors junior staff during promotions while undermining the rights of senior incumbents.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal found no bias in the restructuring process and affirmed the administrative body's discretion in managing the cadre.
Issues: The key issues included the legality of the restructuring, its impact on promotion avenues, and adherence to laid down procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the restructuring was conducted lawfully, adhering to necessary checks and balances without evidence of discrimination or mala fide intentions.
Result: The application was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cadre restructuring based on favoritism and violation of legal guidelines. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defense of restructuring process and appropriate administrative procedure. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial review limitations and respect for administrative discretion. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. final dismissal of the application due to lack of merit. (Para 9) |
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by Mr. Vijender Singh and five other similarly situated applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) call for the records leading to the issue of the impugned order issued by the respondents;
(b) Quash and set aside the office order dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure A. 1);
(c) Direct the Respondents to conduct cadre review of the posts following the guidelines of the DOP&T in terms of O.M. no. I-11011/16/2022-CRD dated 30.09.2022 in a manner which is not against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(d) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass such other suitable order or orders it may deem fit to meet the ends of justice.”
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that the applicants who are working in different capacities and who belong to Scientific cadre in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) are aggrieved by an office order dated 06.06.2024 vide which the respondents have directed restructuring of Scientific, Ministerial, Information Technology and Accounts Cadre. According to the counsel, the said cadre review blatantly violates the guidelines issued by DoPT as well as observations made by the Home Department of Delhi Govt. which is the nodal authority for respondent no.
3. Counsel has alleged mala fide against the respondents, particularly respondent no. 3 who initiated and processed the said restructuring exercise just to favour some of the officers who happened to be the committee members of the Committee tasked for this restructuring exercise. According to the counsel, the committee had without any logical grounds recommended modification by clubbing eleven divisions into six verticals to enable the committee members to get accelerated promotion in their respective verticals depriving senior incumbents in other verticals from promotion as per the seniority list. Moreover, the entire purpose of restructuring had been defeated as respondent no. 3 recommended abolition of posts of Assistant Directors and Senior Scientific Officers despite having shortage of staff resulting in huge pendency of cases in FSL. The counsel highlighted various lacunae in cadre restructuring which are reproduced below:-
“On page 96/N of the office noting file titled Cadre Restructuring & Post Creation in FSL at para 219, it has been observed as under:-
"219. As regards the deletion and recreation of post at Asst. Director and above level, the matter was examined as directed by ACS (Home) and it seems that reduction of post at level of Asst. Director from 47 to 37, recreation of 07 post of Dy. Director to be filled vertical wise instead of existing RR of combined cadre of Asst. Directors will create problem in cadre by promoting junior in particular division over the already senior officer in parallel cadre. e.g. the vertical of Documents, Finger Print, Forensic Psychology/Lie Detection and Photos have been clubbed into one vertical with one post at level of Dy. Director as against the 10 post at level of Asst. Director. Similarly, in Chemistry & Biology 01 post at level of Dy. Director has been created as against only 06 posts of Asst. Directors. In Cyber Forensic Division 02 post of Dy. Director has been created against 12 proposed posts of Asst. Director wherein only 01 Asst. Director and 01 SSO below is in position i.e. SSO level person in division may become Dy. Director immediately whereas Asst. Director in other division already stagnating for last 10-12 years will be left behind."
2. Similarly on page 105/N
