ORDER

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

1. MA Nos. 5306/2025

1.1 In this MA, the applicants submit that despite clear judicial directions by the Tribunal and the High Court to prepare a combined seniority list of PETs based on actual dates of appointment without discrimination, the respondents have failed to comply and instead issued contradictory and arbitrary orders that disrupt settled seniority and promote juniors over seniors. They allege that repeated executive actions, including orders dated 13-05-2025, 26-08-2025, and 24-11-2025, violate binding court rulings, principles of res judicata, and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21, thereby depriving them of fair consideration for promotion.

1.2. Counsel for the applicants further contend that material facts and documents have been suppressed, misleading the Tribunal, and that promotions have been granted selectively and even post retirement, causing discrimination and administrative chaos. They emphasize that judicial orders must prevail over executive actions and that procedural irregularities cannot defeat substantive rights.

1.3. Counsel for the applicants argue that their rightful placement in the seniority list and consideration for promotion based on actual appointment dates has been unjustly denied, while juniors have been accommodated through arbitrary means. The applicants therefore seek urgent intervention, including stay of impugned promotion orders, direction to finalize a lawful combined seniority list, grant of consequential benefits with retrospective effect, and appropriate action against the respondents for non-compliance and suppression of facts, to ensure fairness, equality, and adherence to the rule of law.

2. MA No. 433/2025

2.1 The counsel for the applicants submits that the present miscellaneous application has been filed seeking an urgent stay on various orders issued by the respondents between May 2025 and January 2026, on the ground that these orders are in violation of binding judicial directions previously passed by the Tribunal and upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. It is contended that despite clear and explicit directions, the respondents have failed to properly implement the requirement of preparing and maintaining consolidated, updated seniority lists based on the “date of appointment,” which is the fundamental criterion for determining promotions.

2.2 It is argued that juniors have been granted out-of-turn promotions to higher posts such as PGT, Supervisor, and Assistant Director without due regard to the applicants’ seniority, date of appointment, or eligibility, resulting in discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The applicants clarify that they do not claim an absolute right to promotion, but assert their right to fair consideration based on seniority and applicable rules, without gender-based or arbitrary distinctions.

2.3 The counsel further submits that the respondents have acted in a deliberate and arbitrary manner by issuing multiple inconsistent orders, manipulating seniority positions, granting notional promotions, and failing to prepare requisite combined seniority lists at successive levels, thereby defeating the purpose of earlier judicial orders. It is alleged that such actions amount to willful non-compliance, suppression of material facts, and abuse of administrative power, undermining the rule of law and principles of natural justice.

2.4 It is also contended that the respondents’ actions have caused continuing prejudice to the applicants, including denial of timely promotions and consequential benefits, while similarly placed juniors have been promoted and even retired from higher posts. The applicants argue that unless the impugned orders are stayed and a proper exercise of preparing seniority lists based on date of appointment and promotion in feeder posts is undertaken, further irreparable harm and multiplicity of litigation will arise.