The court addressed promotional discrepancies and the limits of judicial intervention in administrative policy related to service rules.

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

MA No. 3650/2025 for joining together in a single Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are 20 employees working as Supervisor Grade II (Women) in the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of NCT of Delhi. They were appointed in or around the year 2017 and have completed almost 8 years of regular service in Supervisor Grade II. They are working under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), which is a centrally sponsored scheme implemented through Aanganwadis.

3. It is submitted that within the WCD Department, there exist two distinct promotional streams leading to posts that are now treated as equivalent, namely Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) and Superintendent. One stream is that of Supervisors (Women) under ICDS, and the other stream is that of Welfare Officers working under schemes relating to the JJ Act and allied social welfare activities.

4. It is further submitted that under the Supervisor stream, an employee must complete 6 years as Supervisor Grade II, then get promoted to Supervisor Grade I, and thereafter complete 5 additional years as Supervisor Grade I before becoming eligible for promotion to the post of CDPO. Thus, a Supervisor effectively requires 11 years of service to reach the CDPO level. This structure originated from the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, which bifurcated the post of Supervisor into Grade I and Grade II. These recommendations were accepted by the Government. Subsequent Recruitment Rules, including the Supervisor Grade I Rules, 2024, further entrenched this requirement by prescribing 6 years of service in Grade II for promotion to Grade I. In contrast, under the Welfare Officer stream, an employee is eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent after completing only 5 years of service as Welfare Officer.

5. By virtue of the Recruitment Rules of 2011, the posts of CDPO and Superintendent were merged into a single cadre for promotion. As a result, Welfare Officers, despite not working in the ICDS system, are eligible for appointment as CDPOs.

6. It is also submitted that CDPOs and Superintendents are placed at the same pay level and are treated as equivalent posts. However, this merger has resulted in Welfare Officers occupying a large number of CDPO posts, thereby excluding Supervisors who are the backbone of the ICDS implementation.

7. It is argued that the Government of India has, from time to time, issued clear directions to the Government of NCT of Delhi that 75% of the CDPO posts should be filled by promotion from ICDS Supervisors. These directions are contained in letters dated 20.5.1986, 4.2.1987, 23.2.1987, 6.7.2012 and 14.2.2017. The 2012 and 2017 communications specifically advised separating the cadres of CDPO and Superintendent, as the schemes, funding patterns and nature of work are entirely different.

8. Despite these repeated directions, the present position is that out of a unified cadre of 122 posts (95 CDPOs and 27 Superintendents), 61 posts are occupied by Welfare Officers, while only 14 posts are held by Supervisor Grade I officers. Further, 47 sanctioned posts of CDPO are lying vacant. This situation is directly contrary to the directions of the Government of India and has caused serious stagnation and discrimination against the applicants.

9. Counsel for the applicants submits that the entire promotional structure applicable to Supervi