W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 1 of 16

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 19.02.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 27.02.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 27.02.2026

+ W.P. (C) 5620/2019, CM. APPL. 61438/2025 & CM. APPL.

67327/2025

SUMESH KUMAR DUA .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Gauri Puri, Ms.

Meherunissa Anand, Mr. Abeer

and Mr. Kashish Bhardwaj,

Advs.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan and

Ms. Preety Khare, Advs. for R1

to R-3. Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr.

A.S. Singh, Advs. for R-4. Mr.

Harshit Aggarwal, Mr. Vidit

Garg and Mr. Suresh K.

Chopra, Advs. for R-5. Mr.

Sudarshan Rajan, Mr. Hitain

Bajaj and Mr. Ramesh Rawat,

Advs. for R-6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.:

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a

writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.05.2018

[hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the learned

Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟],

whereby the Original Application being O.A. No.1614/2016 filed by

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 2 of 16

the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. In the said O.A., the Petitioner had sought, inter alia, the

following reliefs:

i. Quashing of the final seniority list of Divisional Officers (Fire)

dated 17.02.2016; and

ii. Setting aside of the appointment orders of Respondent Nos. 5

and 6 appointing them as Divisional Officers (Fire) through direct

recruitment.

3. The principal issues which arise for consideration in the present

Petition are whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the inter se

seniority list dated 17.02.2016 prepared in respect of the cadre of

Divisional Officers (Fire) in Delhi Fire Service; and whether the

Tribunal committed any jurisdictional error in declining to interfere

with the appointment of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that

they allegedly did not fulfil the eligibility conditions prescribed under

the applicable Recruitment Rules.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present

Petition, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

5. The Petitioner commenced his service in the Delhi Fire Service

[hereinafter referred to as „DFS‟] as a Sub-Officer w.e.f. 16.02.1991.

Subsequently, he was directly appointed as Station Officer on

01.01.1993. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 3 of 16

Divisional Officer [„ADO‟] w.e.f. 23.10.2006, and eventually elevated

to the post of Divisional Officer (Fire) w.e.f. 29.07.2013.

6. Respondent No.5 joined DFS as a Sub-Officer in May 1993

whereas Respondent No.6 joined DFS as a Sub-Officer in December

1993. They were appointed as Station Officers on 11.01.2002, and

then subsequently promoted as ADOs on 25.03.2013. Thereafter, they

were appointed directly through the Union Public Service

Commission [hereinafter referred to as „UPSC‟] as Divisional Officer

(Fire) on 02.09.2013.

7. Initially, a tentative seniority list of Divisional Officers was

circulated on 26.11.2015, wherein the Petitioner was shown senior to

Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Subsequently, the final seniority list was

issued on 17.02.2016, in which the Petitioner was placed below

Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The Petitioner submitted a representation

challenging the same, which was not considered. Consequently, he

filed O.A. No.1614/2016 before the Tribunal on 05.05.2016, seeking

to quash both the seniority list and the appointments of Respondent

Nos.5 and 6.

8. The Respondents contended, before the Tribunal, that

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were directly recruited against the vacancies

pertaining to recruitment year 2012-2013, and that the seniority had

been fixed strictly in accordance with the Department of Personnel &

Training [„DoPT‟] Office Memorandum [„OM‟] dated 04.03.2014,

which lays down the method for determination of inter-se seniority

between promotees and direct recruits.

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 4 of 16

9. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings, submissions, and

material on record, dismissed the O.A. filed by the Petitioner vide

Impugned Order holding:

(i) the appointments of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were in accordance

with the Recruitment Rules and made through due process by the

UPSC;

(ii) the final seniority list dated 17.02.2016 was issued in accordance

with law and applicable DoPT instructions; and

(iii) there was no allegation or material to indicate mala fide or

arbitrariness in the selection or seniority fixation process.

10. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached this Court by

filing the present Petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

11. Contentions of the Petitioner

11.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner assailed the Impugned Order

primarily on two counts, first, the fixation of inter-se seniority of

Divisional Officers (Fire) placing Respondent Nos.5 and 6 above him

despite their later appointment; and second, the alleged non-

compliance with the eligibility conditions prescribed under the

Recruitment Rules in respect of the appointments of Respondent

Nos.5 and 6.

11.2. With regard to seniority, it was contended that the seniority list

issued by the Respondents on 17.02.2016 is arbitrary. It was submitted

that while the Respondents claim that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 5 of 16

assigned seniority in accordance with the DoPT OM dated

04.03.2014, effective from 27.11.2012, the said averments are

factually incorrect. According to the Petitioner, the requisition for

direct recruitment of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 was only complete in all

respects on 15.01.2013, as confirmed by an RTI disclosure and the

internal notings of UPSC. Therefore, the initiation of the recruitment

process for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 must be reckoned from

15.01.2013, placing it in the same calendar year as the promotion of

the Petitioner, whose promotion proposal was sent in May 2013.

11.3. It was further submitted that the fixation of seniority must be in

accordance with the provisions of the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014,

read with the DoPT OM dated 07.02.1986 and DoPT OM dated

08.09.1998, which collectively lay down the methodology for

determining inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees.

It was asserted that, as per these OMs:

(i) The “Recruitment Year” is the year of initiating the recruitment

process against a vacancy;

(ii) For promotion, the relevant date is when the complete proposal is

sent to the Departmental Promotion Committee [„DPC‟];

(iii) For direct recruitment, the requisition is deemed valid only when

it is complete in all respects during the vacancy year; and

(iv) Rotation of quota between direct recruits and promotees is then

applied on the basis of the respective recruitment years.

11.4 Applying the above principles, it was contended that the

recruitment year of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 must be treated as 2013

(and not 2012 as claimed by the Respondents), which coincides with

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 6 of 16

the Petitioner‟s promotion year. Therefore, it was asserted that, by

operation of the rotation of quota under the DoPT OMs, the Petitioner

is entitled to rank senior to Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and to consequent

promotions in the higher grade ahead of them.

11.5. As regards the eligibility of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 for

appointment as Divisional Officers (Fire), it was submitted that the

UPSC has acted contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules. The

Recruitment Rules prescribed a minimum of five years‟ experience in

the capacity of ADO or equivalent in an organized Fire Organization

with a Grade Pay of Rs.5400. It was submitted that:

(i) The experience of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the Delhi Metro Rail

Corporation [„DMRC‟] does not qualify as experience in an organized

Fire Organization;

(ii) The pay scale in which Respondent Nos.5 and 6 had served

(Rs.6500-10500, pre-revised) or their deputation scale cannot be

considered equivalent to the statutory requirement of Grade Pay 5400

in the capacity of ADO; and

(iii) Consequently, the UPSC, by allowing such experience to be

counted towards eligibility, violated the Recruitment Rules.

11.6. Lastly, it was submitted that the Respondents have intentionally

concealed relevant facts regarding the date of submission of complete

requisition for direct recruitment to the UPSC and thereby misled the

Tribunal. Reliance was placed on CM 42053/2022 and RTI

disclosures to substantiate the claim that the requisition was complete

only on 15.01.2013, rendering the fixation of seniority in favour of

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 unlawful.

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 7 of 16

12. Contentions of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4

12.1. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that

the appointments of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the post of Divisional

Officer (Fire) were made strictly in accordance with the applicable

Recruitment Rules and upon recommendation by the UPSC. It was

contended that the selection process was duly initiated against the

vacancies of the recruitment year 2012-2013, and was conducted in

accordance with the prescribed procedure.

12.2. It was further submitted that the fixation of inter-se seniority

between the promotees and direct recruits was undertaken in

accordance with the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014, which came into

effect from 27.11.2012, i.e., the date of the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar v. Union of India

1

. It was contended

that, as per the said OM, seniority is to be determined with reference

to the recruitment year in which the recruitment process was initiated

and not merely with reference to the date of appointment or joining.

12.3. It was submitted that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were selected

against vacancies pertaining to the recruitment year 2012-2013,

whereas the Petitioner‟s promotion fell in the subsequent recruitment

cycle. Therefore, by application of the rotation of quota between direct

recruits and promotees, Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were rightly placed

above the Petitioner in the final seniority list dated 17.02.2016.

12.4. It was further contended that the Petitioner‟s challenge to the

appointments of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 was barred by limitation

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 8 of 16

under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

[hereinafter referred to as „AT Act‟]. The appointments of Respondent

Nos.5 and 6 were made in March and September 2013 respectively,

whereas the Original Application was filed only on 05.05.2016, well

beyond the prescribed period of one year. According to the

Respondents, the cause of action to challenge the appointment, if any,

arose on the date of appointment and not upon issuance of the

seniority list in 2016.

12.5. In response to the allegations regarding concealment of facts

concerning the date of requisition sent to UPSC, the Respondents

denied any suppression and maintained that the recruitment process

had been initiated in the vacancy year 2012-2013. It was submitted

that the determination of recruitment year had been correctly

undertaken in accordance with DoPT instructions and was duly

considered by the Tribunal.

12.6. On the issue of eligibility, the Respondents contended that the

determination of equivalence of experience and pay scale falls within

the domain of the recruiting authority and UPSC. It was submitted that

the experience of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 had been examined by

UPSC at the stage of scrutiny of applications, and upon being found

eligible, they were selected and recommended for appointment.

13. Contentions of Respondent No.5 & 6

13.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 and

6 supported the Impugned Order and opposed the present Petition.

1

Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515/2005

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 9 of 16

13.2. Preliminary Objections

(i) Plurality of Reliefs- It was submitted that in the Original

Application, the Petitioner had sought two distinct and independent

reliefs, as reiterated in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Such plurality of

reliefs was barred under Rule 10 of the Central Administrative

Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. It was contended that the Tribunal

has, inter alia, noticed this procedural defect while dismissing the

Original Application.

(ii) Limitation- It was contended that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were

appointed to the post of Divisional Officer (Fire) on 02.09.2013. The

challenge to their appointments was raised only on 05.05.2016, i.e.,

after more than two and a half years. It was submitted that under

Section 21 of the AT Act, the limitation prescribed for challenging

such action is one year. The Petitioner, having not questioned the

appointments within the prescribed period, is barred from assailing the

same at a belated stage.

(iii) Non-participation in Selection- It was further argued that the

Petitioner did not participate in the process of direct recruitment

conducted through the UPSC, therefore, the Petitioner cannot

subsequently seek quashing of the appointments made pursuant

thereto.

13.3. Seniority Issue Already Attained Finality- It was submitted that

before this Court, two issues were originally raised by the Petitioner:

(i) challenge to the seniority list; and (ii) challenge to the eligibility of

Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Attention was drawn to the order dated

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 10 of 16

22.05.2019 passed by this Court, wherein it was recorded that the first

issue relating to seniority was squarely covered by the judgment of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in N. R. Parmar v. Union of India & Ors.,

and that, on instructions, the Petitioner did not press the said issue.

Notice was issued only on the limited question concerning eligibility.

It was, therefore, submitted that the issue of seniority has attained

finality and cannot now be reopened directly or indirectly in the

present proceedings.

13.4. Vacancy Year vis-à-vis Recruitment Year- It was submitted that

at the relevant time, DFS was following the financial year system (1

st

April to 31

st

March) as the vacancy year. It was contended that the

vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment pertained to the vacancy

year 2012-2013. The requisition for filling up the said vacancies was

sent to the UPSC on 11.12.2012. Even if certain clarifications were

exchanged subsequently, the initiation of recruitment process was

within the financial year 2012-2013.

In contrast, the proposal for convening the DPC for promotees,

including the Petitioner, was initiated on 24.05.2013, which fell in the

subsequent financial year 2013-2014. Accordingly, it was submitted

that the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.5 and 6 belonged to different

vacancy years and were rightly assigned seniority on that basis.

Reliance was placed upon the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014, which

clarifies that the recruitment year of direct recruits is determined with

reference to the date of sending requisition to the recruiting agency,

and in the case of promotees, the date on which a complete proposal is

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 11 of 16

sent for convening the DPC. It was argued that the Tribunal correctly

applied the said OM while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for

seniority over Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

13.5. Allegation of Re-agitation of Dropped Issue- It was further

submitted that by filing subsequent applications and relying upon

developments after the order dated 22.05.2019, the Petitioner is

attempting to indirectly re-agitate the issue of seniority which had

already been given up before this Court. Such an attempt is

impermissible in law, particularly when the scope of the present

proceedings stood confined to the issue of eligibility.

13.6. Eligibility and Judicial Review- On the question of eligibility, it

was submitted that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 possessed the requisite

qualifications and experience prescribed under the Recruitment Rules

for the post of Divisional Officer (Fire). It was submitted that their

eligibility was examined by the UPSC, a constitutional body entrusted

with conducting selections in accordance with law. After due scrutiny,

UPSC recommended their names for appointment.

It was contended that it is well settled that courts and tribunals, in

exercise of judicial review, do not sit in appeal over the assessment

made by expert bodies with regard to technical eligibility and

suitability, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or

mala fides, which is not the case here.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

14. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 12 of 16

of the parties and, with their able assistance, carefully perused the

material on record.

15. At the outset, it would be apposite to note that the present writ

petition was first taken up for consideration on 22.05.2019, when a

Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:

“CM No.24648/2019

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 5620/2019

The petitioner assails the order dated 30.05.2018 passed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in OA

No.1614/2016. Primarily, two issues were raised by the petitioner

to assail the seniority list issued by the respondents wherein

respondent nos.5 and 6 were shown senior to the petitioner as

Divisional Officer (Fire). The first issue raised by the petitioner is

squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in N.R.

Parmar vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No.7514-

7515/2005 decided on 27.11.2012 and subsequent decisions. To

that extent, Mr.Raju, on instructions, states that the petitioner has

not challenged the findings returned by the Tribunal. The second

issue raised by the petitioner related to the respondent nos.5 and 6

not meeting the eligibility criteria with regard to their past

experience as per the recruitment rules. On that aspect, issue

notice. Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 accept notice.

Let notice be issued to respondent nos.5 and 6, returnable

on 20.08.2019, before the Registrar (Appellate).

In the meantime, respondent nos.1 to 4 may file their

counter affidavits within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed

before the next date.

List before the Court on 10.12.2019”

16. A plain reading of the aforesaid order makes it abundantly clear

that two distinct issues had been urged by the Petitioner while

assailing the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal. The first issue

pertained to the correctness of the seniority list in which Respondent

Nos.5 and 6 were placed above the Petitioner in the cadre of

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 13 of 16

Divisional Officer (Fire). The second issue related to the alleged

ineligibility of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the ground that they did

not fulfil the requisite past experience prescribed under the applicable

Recruitment Rules.

17. It is significant that, insofar as the first issue concerning

seniority was concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on

instructions, made a categorical statement before the Coordinate

Bench that the findings returned by the Tribunal on that aspect were

not being challenged. In view of the said statement, notice was

directed to be issued only on the second issue, namely, the question of

eligibility of Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

18. The consequence of the statement recorded on 22.05.2019

cannot be understated. The scope of the present Writ Petition stood

expressly narrowed by virtue of the said statement. Once the Petitioner

chose not to assail the findings of the Tribunal with respect to the

seniority list, and the Court proceeded to issue notice limited to the

issue of eligibility, the Petitioner cannot now be permitted to widen

the ambit of challenge beyond what was expressly preserved.

19. At this stage, it is also necessary to advert to the objection

raised by Respondent Nos.5 and 6 regarding limitation. It was

contended that the Original Application filed by the Petitioner before

the Tribunal was barred under Section 21 of the AT Act. Though this

objection was raised before the Tribunal, the Impugned Order does not

reflect any specific consideration or finding on the said issue.

20. For convenience, Section 21 of the AT Act is reproduced as

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 14 of 16

under:

21. Limitation.—(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,—

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a)

of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the

grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on

which such final order has been made;

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is

mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and

a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order

having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said

period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where—

(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had

arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three

years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers

and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in

respect of the matter to which such order relates; and

(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been

commenced before the said date before any High Court,

the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the

period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-

section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever

period expires later.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-

section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year

specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may

be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant

satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the

application within such period.

A perusal of the above Section reveals that the same mandates that a

Tribunal shall not admit an application unless it is made within one

year from the date on which the final order impugned therein has been

made. Sub-section (3) carves out a limited discretion enabling the

Tribunal to admit an application beyond the prescribed period upon

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 15 of 16

sufficient cause being shown.

21. In the present case, Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were directly

recruited and appointed to the post of Divisional Officer (Fire) with

effect from 02.09.2013. The Original Application challenging, inter

alia, their appointment on the ground of alleged ineligibility came to

be filed on 05.05.2016. If the grievance of the Petitioner was with

respect to the very appointment of Respondent Nos.5 and 6, the cause

of action, in the ordinary course, would arise on the date of such

appointment. The filing of the Original Application nearly three years

thereafter was ex facie beyond the period prescribed under Section

21(1)(a) of the AT Act.

22. Learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that the

cause of action accrued only upon issuance of the seniority list dated

17.02.2016. However, this contention does not advance the

Petitioner‟s case. Firstly, the challenge to the seniority list itself was

expressly given up before the Coordinate Bench on 22.05.2019.

Secondly, a challenge to the appointment of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

on the ground of ineligibility cannot be deferred or postponed merely

because a consequential seniority list was issued subsequently. The

limitation for questioning the foundational act of appointment cannot

be extended by reference to a later consequential administrative

action.

23. It was also submitted that representations against the selection

of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were pending. Mere pendency of

representations, however, does not arrest the running of limitation

W.P.(C) 5620/2019 Page 16 of 16

unless the statute so provides. Section 21 does not contemplate

indefinite extension of time on account of pending representations.

24. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that:

i. the challenge to the seniority list stands foreclosed in view of

the statement recorded before the Coordinate Bench on

22.05.2019; and

ii. the challenge to the appointment of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 on

the ground of alleged ineligibility was, in any event, beyond the

prescribed period of limitation under Section 21 of the AT Act.

25. No ground is thus made out for interference with the Impugned

Order in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

26. The Writ Petition, along with all pending applications, is

accordingly dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.

FEBRUARY 27, 2026

jai/pal