Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Madhu Jain, JJ
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Charan – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5945/2017 | W.P.(C) 6603/2017 | W.P.(C) 10845/2018 | W.P.(C) 376/2018 | W.P.(C) 13428/2019 | W.P.(C) 1708/2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Padma Kumar S., Gurpreet Singh, Arun Bhardwaj, Vikram Jetly, Shreya Jetly, Neha Mishra, Muskan Jain, Ashu Tiwari
For the Respondents: A. K. Behera, Amarendra P. Singh, Padma Kumar S., Gurpreet Singh, Arun Bhardwaj, Vikram Jetly, Shreya Jetly, Neha Mishra, Muskan Jain, Ashu Tiwari

Seniority is fixed based on recruitment ratios. Promotions made within the prescribed promotional quota remain regular despite delays in the examination quota. However, diverting quota-based vacancies without following mandatory procedural requirements for rule relaxation is invalid, rendering appointments against such diverted vacancies ad-hoc for seniority purposes.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority fixation - Recruitment through promotion versus competitive examination - Ratio 60:40 - Executive instructions mandate that promotions against the promotional quota should be treated as regular unless there is deliberate under-reporting of examination vacancies - If vacancies are filled within the prescribed promotional quota, the breakdown of the competitive examination schedule due to litigation does not render such promotions ad-hoc. (Paras 46, 51, 52-53)

(B) Service Law - Power to relax rules - Mandatory requirement for an express order in writing and consultation with the recruiting commission - Absence of formal written order and lack of mandatory consultation renders the diversion of vacancies between recruitment quotas invalid; thus, promotions against such diverted vacancies must be classified as ad-hoc. (Paras 63, 66, 68)

Facts of the case:
Disputes arose regarding seniority between officers promoted through a departmental committee and those recruited through a competitive examination. Due to prolonged litigation regarding eligibility, examinations were not conducted for several years. During this period, the department continued regular promotions against the promotional quota. Subsequently, certain vacancies were diverted from the examination quota to the promotional quota on a temporary basis without formal compliance with statutory relaxation rules.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that promotions made within the prescribed promotional quota were regular. However, the diversion of vacancies between recruitment streams without following mandatory procedural requirements, including formal written orders and consultation with the recruiting commission, rendered those specific appointments ad-hoc.

Issues: Whether promotions made during the period the competitive examination was in abeyance should be treated as ad-hoc, and whether the diversion of vacancies between the two recruitment streams was legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority must adhere to the recruitment quota ratios; however, where the quota system breaks down due to external factors, promotions made within the legitimate quota remain regular. Powers to relax statutory recruitment rules are strictly limited by procedural requirements; failure to satisfy these renders appointments against diverted vacancies ad-hoc.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of by declaring promotions made within the promotional quota as regular, while promotions against diverted vacancies were held as ad-hoc, with directions to prepare a fresh, legally compliant seniority list.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual background and the dispute regarding seniority between dpc promotees and ldce appointees in the intelligence bureau. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
2. submission of evidence through affidavits regarding vacancy calculations, quota adherence, and temporary diversion of posts. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
3. arguments presented by the union of india regarding the regularity of promotions within the promotional quota. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. arguments presented by ldce respondents asserting improper diversion of vacancies and violation of seniority principles. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
5. judicial assessment of seniority rules under dop&t guidelines and the validity of promotions when the quota rule breaks down. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
6. analysis of rule relaxation powers; determination that unauthorized diversion of quota vacancies renders appointments ad-hoc. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
7. ratio that failure to strictly comply with mandatory procedures for relaxation of service rules invalidates seniority claims for affected appointees. (Para 68 , 69 , 70)
8. final orders directing recasting of seniority lists with distinction between regular promotional appointments and invalidly diverted appointments. (Para 71 , 72 , 73)

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. The present batch of writ petitions, W.P.(C) 5945/2017, W.P.(C) 6603/2017, W.P.(C) 376/2018 and W.P.(C) 13428/2019 have been filed challenging the Order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal), in O.A. No. 1227/2016, titled Shiv Charan v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal had been pleased to dispose of the said O.A. with the following directions:

“48. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons stated, we quash the seniority list dated 09.06.2015. For the purpose of inter se seniority the DPC promotes from 2006-07 to 2009-10 shall be treated as ad-hoc till the year 2010-11 when in fulfilment of the statutory requirement the LDCE was also held. A list of DPC promotes from 2006-07 to 2010-11 shall be prepared in the same order as the settled position of seniority of the promotes and the same shall be rotated with the LDCE appointees of 2010-11 for fixation of inter se seniority in accordance with the OM dated 07.02.1986. It is an admitted fact that the respondents have already considered the approved service of the applicant from the year 2006 and given the financial benefits and NFSG as well, by applying rule 4 of the IBSSR. We have shown that is not the correct interpretation of the rule 4 in the context of the rule 3. However, the orders of counting of approved service the appointees LDCE 2010 from 2006 and granting consequential financial benefits including NFSG are not interfered with. OA is disposed of in terms of the above. No costs.”

2. W.P.(C) 10845/2018 and W.P.(C) 1708/2020 have been filed, challenging the Order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1399/2016, titled Charan Singh Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal, following its order in Shiv Charan (supra), disposed of the said O.A. with the following directions:

“13. In view of the above discussion, we dispose of this OA with the following directions: -

i) Seniority list dated 15.07.2014 is quashed and set aside to the extent it pertains to the applicant. The applicant shall be given seniority from the year the vacancy against which he was promoted and shall be; rotated with the DPC promotees of the same year for fixation of inter-se seniority in accordance with OM dated 07.02.1986.

ii) The above exercise may be carried out within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINavin Chawla, Madhu Jain, JJUnion Of India – AppellantVersusShiv Charan – RespondentW.P.(C) 5945/2017 | W.P.(C) 6603/2017 | W.P.(C) 10845/2018 | W.P.(C) 376/2018 | W.P.(C) 13428/2019 | W.P.(C) 1708/2020

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Madhu Jain, JJ
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Charan – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5945/2017 | W.P.(C) 6603/2017 | W.P.(C) 10845/2018 | W.P.(C) 376/2018 | W.P.(C) 13428/2019 | W.P.(C) 1708/2020