Shivani vs DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
C
CENTRAL ADMINISTRAT
TIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: N
NEW DELHI
OA NO.782/202
MA NO.4460/20
26
26
Order res
Order prono
served on 29.09.2026
ounced on 22.10.2026
HON’BLE M
HON’BLE D
1. Ms. S
292,
11007
2. Ms. S
R/o 5
Extens
3. Ms. As
13, Jh
Delhi-
4. Ms. N
Delhi-
5. Ms. B
Gali N
Delhi-
6. Ms. B
No. 7
Chatar
7. Ms. B
R/o 85
8. Ms. He
Pul Pra
MR. MANISH GARG, MEM
DR. ANAND S KHATI, ME
MBER (J)
EMBER (A)
hivani W/o Sh. Manish K
Kumar Bhardwaj, R/o
Kakrola Housing Comp
78.
lex, Kakrola, Delhi-
Shilpika Srivastava D/o S
Sh. Vinod Srivastava
nts, Patparganj, I.P.
53, Navkranti Apartmen
sion, Delhi-110092
shu W/o Sh. Manish Sethi
harkhandi Road, Bholana
i R/o IV/349, Gali no.
th Nagar, Shahdara,
32
Neha Chaudhary W/o Na
aveen, Flat no. 115,
t -16 A, Sec -22, Rohini,
110086
arkha Rani D/o Sh. Hite
No-1, East Laxmi Market
esh Kumar R/o 28/A,
t, Near MCD School,
110092
harti Kumari Meena D/o
726, Flat No.103, D35
Naval Singh R/o H.
5, 100 Futa Road,
rpuri Pahadi, Delhi
Bishakha Karan W/o Sh.
56, Gali No. 8, Block B,Kes
Manik Kumar Jana,
shav Nagar, Delhi-36
emlata D/o Sh. Chokhey S
Singh Arya R/o D-510
ahlad Pur, Delhi-110044
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
2
Item no.40(C-4)
9. Ms. K
Block-
11004
10. Ms. K
OA No.782/20
026
Kavita D/o Sh. Kamta Ra
am, R/o H.No.-31-A,
-I, Najafgarh, Delhi-
-J, Shyam Vihar Phase-
43
Kavita W/o Sh. Vipin Ku
umar R/o H.No.-139,
V.P.O.
Najafg
11. Ms. K
Kair, Ganga Ram Panna,
garh Delhi-110039
Near Federal Bank,
hyati D/o Sh. Fateh Sing
lat East of Loni Road, Sha
gh R/o C-230, L.I.G.
DDA fl
12. Ms. La
hdara, Delhi-110093
axmi Pal D/o Lt. Sh. Gaj
raj Singh R/o 158-B,
arpur, Delhi
Delhi A
13. Ms. M
Administration Flats, Tima
Meenakshi Bhardwaj W/o
Sh. Pradeep Tiwari
Uttam nagar, Delhi-
R/o R
11005
14. Ms. Re
R-44, Mohan Garden, U
59
eena Kumari W/o Sh. Gaj
jan Singh R/o H.NO.-
1595,
15. Ms. S
Duliya Colony, Alipur, De
lhi-110036
Sandhya D/o Sh. Sabha
ajeet R/o 36, Bihar
Chanakya Puri, New
Bhawa
Delhi-
16. Ms. Sh
an, 5-Kautilya Marg, C
110021
hikha D/o Sh. Pritam Sing
ash Mohalla, Kalan Mahal
02
gh R/o H. NO.- 1459,
l, Darya Ganj, Delhi-
Subha
11000
17. Ms. An
njum W/o Sh. Aftab Alam
2, Second Floor, Tughlaka
m R/o RZ 9/41-42 Gali
No. 12
18. Ms Rit
bad Extension Delhi
tu W/o Sh Shashi Kant K
r-11 Rohini Delhi-110085
Kashyap R/o C-3/103
Sector
19. Ms.Sw
wati W/o Sh. Kuldeep
Gautam R/o A-55,
51
Jagatp
20. Ms. V
puri Gali no 7, Delhi-11005
Vandana Shukla W/o
yee, R/o C-4/19 gali
mapuri Gamri Ext. Delhi
Sh. Pawan Kumar
Vajpay
Sudam
no 1 Pusta 5th
...Applicants
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
3
Item no.40(C-4)
(By Advoca
OA No.782/20
026
ate: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, S
Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Hetvi Patel & Mr.Kaol
iangpou Kamei)
Versus
of NCT of Delhi
gh Secretary Departme
opment & Ors Mahrana Pr
mere Gate, Delhi-110006
1. Govt.
Throug
Develo
Kashm
2. Union
Wome
Shastr
3. Mohd.
ahsan
Nefasa
2nd F
Okha,
4. Ritu K
Floor,
5. Vandit
Block
6. Navee
chauh
colony
7. Yoges
supdta
Kashm
8. Hitesh
hitesh
Harya
9. Prince
jjbsvis
Mahar
Extens
10. Devika
nt Women & Child
ratap ISBT
of India Through Its S
en & Child Development G
Secretary, Ministry of
Government of India,
ri Bhawan, New Delhi
Ahsan
[email protected]
at Hussain, 77/108 F, Abd
dul Sattar Apartment,
loor, Gali No. 1, Gaffar
Manzil, Jamia Nagar,
South Delhi – 110025
Kumari ritugrewal167@g
gmail.com B-23 2nd
ar New Delhi
Jeevan Park, Uttam Naga
ta Chandra vanditawcd9@
@gmail.com 60A DA
4
Hari Nagar, Delhi-110064
en Singh
[email protected]
y
Chauhan
m 32//8 Indira vikas
h Prakash
[email protected] 2
mere Gate Building, Delhi-
2nd Floor, ISBT
110006
h Bhardwaj
[email protected] H.No. 1269
na-122001
9 Sec-17C, Gurugram
Kumar
[email protected] J
rishi Dayanand Marg
sion, Shahdara, Delhi-110
JJB Vishwas Nagar,
, Vishwas Nagar
0032
a Sharma
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
4
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
sharm
1 Guru
11. Asmita
[email protected] H
no 228, sec-15, part
ugram, Haryana 122001
a Dubey
[email protected] G-14
apuri Road, Dilshad Colony
asmita
seema
12. Amitab
4, block G, New
y, Delhi-110095
bh Yadav
[email protected] H.N
r-3, Greater Noida West 2
amitab
Sector
13. Shreya
No 182, Block - D,
01306
ashi Tiwari
[email protected] 126,
shreya
Wave
14. Rajes
Ground floor, Sec-4,
City-201002
sh Singh
supdta
2nd F
11000
15. Neha M
[email protected]
Floor, ISTB Kashmere G
06
Gate Building, Delhi-
Mishra
[email protected]
e No. 572, sector 6, Ba
07
neha.m
House
12450
16. Gurjan
hadurgarh, Haryana,
nt Singh
[email protected]
Gurjan
1363 G
17. Mudra
Gulabhi Bagh Delhi-11000
07
ksh
akshi [email protected]
mudra
C Pock
Siddha
18. Mohd.
ket A,
arth Extension Delhi - 14
Irshad
[email protected]
floor, Gali no-1, Gaffar Ma
heyirs
Third f
Jamia
19. Pankaj
anzil,
Nagar, Delhi-25
j Nain
[email protected]
nain.p
Flat Nu
Sansk
Sector
umber-102,
rit Nagar Apartment,
r-14, Rohini, Delhi-85
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
5
Item no.40(C-4)
20. Urvash
OA No.782/20
026
hi Khatri
[email protected] H.no
urvash
Sonipa
21. Saurav
o-262, Village Kundli,
at, Haryana-131028
v
[email protected] Om
k 124501.
sourab
Rohtak
22. Kasib
max City, Sec 28,
Ali
[email protected] Gaf
, New Delhi
kashif
Nagar
23. Naman
ffar Manzil, Jamia
n Gupta
[email protected] A
Delhi-110044
naman
New D
24. Sukan
A-29, Jaitpur Extn.
nya Sen
sukany
Ghazia
25. Raghv
[email protected] 242 II
abad, U.P. 201010
II-A, Rachna, Vaishali
vendra
raghav
Village
Tehsil
Distric
26. Priyab
[email protected]
e - Asrohi Post - Chandpur
ra,
- Karhal,
ct - Mainpuri U.P 205264
bart Bhaskar
[email protected] C
priyab
Delhi-
27. Shwet
C-222, Pandav Nagar,
110092
ta Singh
s.shwe
Secret
28. Rajshr
[email protected] Pers
tary, DWCD, Delhi Sachiw
sonal Branch of
walaya, Delhi-110002
ree Manolia
rajshre
Arya S
29. Ritika
[email protected] 1
Samaj Road, Karol Bagh N
6/254 h bapa nagar
New Delhi 110005
Kardam
[email protected] D-9 plo
ritika.9
Garde
30. Mand
ot no. 25 Shalimar
n Ext.I Shahiba bad Ghaz
iabad 201005
eep
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
6
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
mande
Wala R
31. Laxma
[email protected] 3
Rasta, VPO Jaunti, Delhi 1
322 Main Nahar Talab
110081 (North West)
an Verma
laxma
Thana
32. Abhila
[email protected]
Road, Bhajan Pura, Delhi
Block C-198/8,
i -: 110053
sha Bandhu
[email protected] C
ential Complex, Kinsway C
abhila
Reside
33. Kritika
C-1 (GF) SEWA Kutir
Camp Delhi-110009
a Yadav
wecbra
Khanp
34. Mande
[email protected] F
pur, New Delhi 110080
120 Jawahar Park
eep Malik
mande
G.No-2
11004
35. Rishi P
[email protected]
H.NO-20,B-Block,
ajafgarh, New Delhi-
2, East Krishna Vihar, N
43
Pawar
[email protected] Di
C22-23, Udhyog Sadan
16
rishi.p
West,
Delhi-
36. Ravind
strict Office South
n, Qutub Inst. Area,
der
[email protected] B
ravind
Vihar,
37. Rashm
B-1065, C Sangam
New Delhi-110080
mi
[email protected] B
Urban Shelter, 980, New
16B. Dwarka, New Delhi-1
rashm
Floor,
Sec. 1
38. Rajnis
lock C-11, Second
w EWS Adarsh Appt.
10079
h Mann
[email protected] D-
rajnish
Gali,
11009
39. Prema
-1/152, Munshi Ram
Nehru Vihar Karawal
94
Nagar Road, Delhi-
a Tiwari
[email protected] Tower
prema
Jaypee
40. Preet
no.17 flat no. 1102,
e Aman Sector 151 Noida
i Bansal
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
7
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
dwcds
Vihar,
41. Rayya
[email protected] District
t Office South, Jal
Delhi
Terminal, Lajpat Nagar, D
n Yunus
[email protected] D-8/6
rayyan
Khalil,
42. Rajiv L
6, D.D.A. Flats, Sarai
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-1100
06
Lakra
[email protected] 439/1, M
41
jjb7wc
11004
43. Shalu
Mundka, New Delhi-
Malik
[email protected] CTB Bran
mere Gate, Building, Delhi-
shrmlk
Kashm
44. Yogen
nch, 6th Floor, ISBT
-110006
der Lal
[email protected]
22/2 NEW Modern Shahda
oli Road Delhi-110032
lal_yog
4649/
Mando
45. Kirti K
H.No.7
46. Swati
ara,
[email protected]
m
72,VPO-Chandpur, Delhi.
Shokeen
[email protected] House No.
swatis
Thakra
47. Satish
. 190, Village Bajitpur
an, New Delhi-110039
Meena
[email protected] 18
, Mahesh Nagar, Ton
than- 302015
satishm
Vistar,
Rajast
48. Om Pr
20-B,D
Hari N
8-B, Agrasen Nagar
nk Phatak, Jaipur,
rakash Meena Wecbranch
[email protected]
DA Block,
Nagar Delhi 110064.
...Respondents
(By advoca
te: Mr. Amit Yadav with M
Ms. Monika Bhargava
& Mr. M. Rehan and
with Mr. Setu Niket &
Manish Kumar, Privat
Ms. Esha Mazumdar
& Mr. Abhishek Yadav,
te respondents
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
8
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
:ORDER:
BY HON’BL
LE MR. MANISH GARG,
MEMBER (J):
The a
applicants have filed t
he present Original
Application
seeking the following reli
efs:
“a. For
an order or seeking direction/
/order to set aside/quash
the ord
der dated 18.2.2026 issued
d by the department of
Women
n & Child Development, Govt.
. of GNCTD at Annexure
A-1 her
reto.
b. Pass
s an order staying and quashin
ng order dated 30.1.2026
seeking
g documents for promotion of
f the Welfare officers on
the pos
st of CDPO.
c. For a
an order appointing/promotion
n of all the petitioners as
the Ch
hild Development Project O
Officer in the existing
vacanci
ies with immediate effect.
d. Pass
s an order directing Respond
dent Department that no
welfare
e officer be appointed against
the vacancy of the CDPO
till such
h time the 20 applicant are app
pointed as CDPOS.
e. For
an order restraining the Del
lhi Government and the
Departm
ment of Women and Ch
hild Development from
promot
ting Welfare Officers as CDPOs
s in future.
f. For a
an order quashing and setting
g aside the bifurcation of
Superv
visors post into Gr. I and Gr. II
I, and the requirement in
the Dep
partment of Women & Child D
Development, Supervisors
(Wome
en), Grade-1, Recruitment Ru
ules, 2024 to the effect
that for
r promotion from Gr. I to CDP
PO would require 5 years
of serv
vice, as well as the requireme
ent in the rules that for
promot
tion from Supervisor Gr. II to
o Gr. 1 would require 6
years' s
service in Gr. II, thereby ena
bling Supervisors after 5
years o
of service to be appointed as C
CDPOS.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
9
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
g. For a
an order directing the Respon
ndents to forthwith make
an asse
essment of the number of per
rmanent sanctioned posts
of CDP
PO as are necessary given th
the volume of work and
thereaf
fter immediately sanction the
said number of posts for
CDPOs
so as to ensure that every S
Supervisor on completion
of 5 ye
ears' service in the reconstruc
ted supervisory grade as
prayed
for in clause c above, is p
promoted to the post of
CDPO f
forthwith, or, at the very m
minimum be granted the
wages,
benefits and privileges of
f the CDPO post with
retrosp
pective effect from the date of
f completion of 5 years of
service
as Supervisor
h. For a
an order quashing and setting
aside the Department of
Women
n & Child Development, Super
rvisors (Women), Grade-
I, Recr
ruitment Rules, 2024 as well
as Department of Social
Welfare
e, Superintendents/Reco
onciliation-cum-Guidance
Officer/
/Assistant Supervisor (W
WCW)/District Probation
Officer/
/Welfare Officer/Planning Of
fficer/Child Development
Project
Officer, Recruitment Rules, 2
011 to the limited extent
indicate
ed in this O.A. and to main
ntain parity between the
Welfare
e Officers and the Supervisor
rs as well as to maintain
parity i
in the years of service in ord
der to reach the post of
Superin
ntendents/CDPO in 5 years, as
s well as in Grade Pay at
all leve
ls.
i. For a
an Order directing the respon
ndents to grant financial
benefit
of 4200 grade pays as per
7 CPC to the petitioners
(Superv
visors) from the of date joining
g.
j. Direc
ct the Respondents to mak
ke separate Recruitment
Rules fo
for Superintendents to be prom
moted to Welfare Officers
and sep
parate Recruitment Rules for
r CDPO to be promoted
from su
upervisors.”
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
10
Item no.40(C-4)
2. Vide o
OA No.782/20
026
order dated 20.07.2026,
this Tribunal passed
the followin
ng order:
“Learne
ed senior counsel appearing fo
or the applicants submits
that the
e applicants belong to the Ang
ganwadi stream and that,
after th
he 2011 Recruitment Rules, th
he promotional avenue to
the pos
st of Child Development Proj
oject Officer (CDPO) has
resulted
d in discrimination vis-à-v
vis the Welfare Officer
stream
. It is contended that th
e applicants require a
substan
ntially longer period to becom
me eligible for promotion,
wherea
as Welfare Officers become
eligible within a much
shorter
r period and, in the absence
e of amendment of the
Recruit
tment Rules, all promotional v
vacancies are likely to be
occupie
ed by the latter. Reliance is a
also placed upon various
commu
unications/recommendations i
issued by the Union of
India
recommending a 75:25 ra
atio in favour of the
Anganw
wadi stream.
2. L
earned counsel appearing for
r the respondents seeks
time to
o obtain instructions, inter a
alia, with regard to the
status a
and nature of the communicat
tions issued by the Union
of Indi
ia and whether the same ar
re mandatory or merely
advisor
ry/model guidelines for the Sta
ates/UTs.
3. L
earned senior counsel for th
the applicants shall also
prepare
e and file a concise chart indic
cating:
1. the c
chronology of appointments of
f the applicants;
2. the r
relevant Recruitment Rules;
3. the r
respective promotional hierarc
chy of both streams;
4. the r
relevant page numbers of the
e documents relied upon;
and
5. the p
page references depicting the
appointment orders and
other d
documents necessary for appre
eciating the controversy.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
11
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
4. T
The respondents shall also plac
ce on record the relevant
Recruit
tment Rules and other docume
ents relied upon by them.
5. It is
is noticed that the principal
l issue which arises for
conside
eration is whether the appli
icants belonging to the
Anganw
wadi stream, who were ap
ppointed as Supervisor
Grade-I
II under the 2011 Recruit
tment Rules and seek
promot
tion to the post of CDPO, h
have been subjected to
discrim
ination vis-à-vis officers be
elonging to the Welfare
Officer
stream on account of th
he existing promotional
structur
re.
6. Lear
rned senior counsel for the ap
pplicants further submits
that, u
under the existing Rules,
there is presently no
prescrib
bed ratio between the two s
streams and, unless the
Rules a
are amended, all promotional v
vacancies are likely to be
filled b
by Welfare Officers, thereby
permanently prejudicing
the pro
omotional prospects of the app
plicants.
7. L
earned counsel for the resp
pondents submits that a
stay is
operating in the matter and
that the promotions are
being e
effected subject to the said int
terim order/status quo. It
is furth
her submitted that an applica
ation seeking vacation of
the inte
erim order is pending.
8. T
The Registry is directed to r
reflect the name of Mr.
Varun V
Vats, learned counsel appearin
ng on behalf of the Union
of India
a, as respondents' counsel in t
the future cause lists.
9. At th
he request of learned counse
el for the parties, list the
matter
on 31.07.2026 for further h
earing as part heard. In
the m
eantime, the respondents
shall obtain necessary
instruct
tions and the parties shall file
the charts/documents as
directed
d above.”
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
12
Item no.40(C-4)
2.1 It is st
OA No.782/20
026
tated that, out of the app
plicants in the present
Original A
Application, applicant No
o. 1, Ms. Shivani,
applicant N
No. 5, Ms. Barkha Rani,
applicant No. 6, Ms.
Bharti Kum
mari Meena, applicant
No. 9, Ms. Kavita,
applicant N
No. 13, Ms. Meenakshi Bha
ardwaj, and applicant
No. 18, Ms
s. Reetu have been promo
oted from Supervisor
Grade-II to
o Supervisor Grade-I. The
remaining applicants
are stated
to be continuing as
Supervisor Grade-II,
notwithstan
nding the period of servic
ce rendered by them
and their c
claim regarding eligibility
for promotion under
the applicab
ble Recruitment Rules.
2.2 Learne
ed senior counsel appear
ring on behalf of the
applicants
submits that the applic
cants belong to the
Anganwadi/
/ICDS stream and w
were appointed as
Supervisor
Grade-II pursuant to th
he notification dated
12.01.2017
7. It is contended th
at the promotional
structure g
governing the applicants
s places them at a
disadvantag
ge vis-à-vis officers belo
nging to the Welfare
Officer stre
am, particularly in relatio
n to promotion to the
post of Chil
d Development Project Of
fficer (CDPO).
2.3 Learne
ed senior counsel
submits that the
Governmen
nt of India has, from t
ime to time, issued
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
13
Item no.40(C-4)
communica
OA No.782/20
026
ations to the Governme
nt of NCT of Delhi
recommend
ding changes in the Re
cruitment Rules and
seeking to
ensure that the promotio
onal prospects of the
ICDS/Anga
nwadi stream are adequat
tely protected. In this
regard, re
eliance is placed upon
the letters dated
20.05.1986
6 (page 364), 04.02.
1987 (page 370),
23.02.1987
7 (page 374), 06.07.20
12 (page 376) and
14.02.2017
7 (page 382).
2.4 It is s
submitted that the afores
said communications,
according t
to the applicants, consiste
ently emphasised the
need to p
rovide a 75% promotio
onal quota for ICDS
female Su
pervisors/Mukhya Sevika
as in the cadre of
CDPO. In
particular, learned se
nior counsel draws
attention t
o the communication da
ated 14.02.2017, the
relevant po
ortion of which reads as un
nder:
"2. As p
per guidelines issued by the G
Government of India from
time to
o time, 75% promotion quot
ta in the cadre of CDPO
should
be from ICDS Mukhya Sevika
only. It appears that the
Departm
ment of WCD in the Governm
ment of NCT of Delhi is
appoint
ting CDPOS from the join
nt cadre of CDPO &
Superin
ntendent thereby ignoring th
he legitimate claims of
eligible
Supervisors for promotion to
the post of CDPOS.
3. A
As the Integrated Child Devel
lopment Services (ICDS)
Scheme
e is a Centrally Sponsored
d Scheme and overall
adminis
stration, management &
monitoring regarding
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
14
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
implem
mentation of the ICDS Scheme
e are being done by the
concern
ned State Government, the
issue of alleged non-
promot
tion of Supervisors to the post
ts of CDPOS raised in the
grievan
nce petition falls within the pu
rview of the Government
of NCT
T of Delhi. In view of the ab
ove, the Government of
NCT of
f Delhi is requested to examin
ne/investigate the matter
and su
ubmit the action taken report
t to this Ministry at the
earliest
t under intimation to the applic
cant."
2.5 Learne
ed senior counsel further
submits that, as per
the positio
on stated by the app
plicants, out of 95
sanctioned
posts of CDPO a
and 27 posts of
Superintend
dent, forming part of th
he unified cadre, 61
posts are o
occupied by Welfare Office
ers, whereas only 14
posts are o
occupied by Supervisor G
Grade-I officers. It is
contended
that 47 sanctioned post
ts of CDPO are lying
vacant and
that the present distribu
ution of posts defeats
the object
t of the communicatio
ons issued by the
Governmen
nt of India, upon which the
e applicants rely.
2.6 In su
pport of the contention
n that the proposed
promotiona
al arrangement is neithe
r unprecedented nor
impracticab
ble, learned senior cou
unsel refers to the
Recruitmen
nt Rules of various States
and Union Territories,
including C
Chandigarh, Daman and D
Diu, Dadra and Nagar
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
15
Item no.40(C-4)
Haveli, Har
OA No.782/20
026
ryana, Manipur and Guja
rat. The comparative
particulars
placed on record by
the applicants are
reproduced
below:
S.No.
1
State/UT
Chandigarh
Promotion Criteria
75% of posts to be
filled by promotion
from Supervisor after
completion of 5 years
of service.
Promotion from
Supervisor after
completion of 6 years
of service.
Promotion from
Supervisor after
completion of 5 years
of service.
80% of promotional
quota to be filed from
Supervisor/Asst. CDPO
(ICDS) having 5 years
of regular service.
Only Mukhya Sevika is
allowed to appear in
the examination to
become eligible for
promotion.
2
Daman, Diu, Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
3
Haryana
4
Manipur
5
Gujarat
2.7 On t
the basis of the afo
oresaid comparative
statement,
learned senior counsel
submits that several
States/Unio
on Territories have provid
ded for promotion to
the post of
CDPO from the superviso
ory cadre of the ICDS
stream, inc
cluding by prescribing a s
specified promotional
quota. It is
s contended that the ap
plicants are similarly
situated an
nd that the Government o
of NCT of Delhi ought
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
16
Item no.40(C-4)
to consider
OA No.782/20
026
r adopting a comparable a
arrangement, instead
of permitti
ng the promotional vaca
ancies in the unified
cadre to be
e filled predominantly by
officers belonging to
the Welfare
e Officer stream.
2.8 Learne
ed senior counsel furthe
r draws attention to
the minute
es of the meeting dated
25.09.2025, wherein
the need fo
or restructuring the ICDS
cadre was discussed.
The releva
nt portion, as reproduce
ed in the applicants'
rejoinder da
ated 07.04.2026, reads as
s follows:
"The Se
ecretary, DWCD, highlighted
the need for a dedicated
ICDS c
cadre through cadre restructur
ring. The chief Secretary
directed
d immediate steps for cadre r
restructuring in DWCD to
address
s the system gaps".
2.9 It is
submitted that, des
spite the aforesaid
deliberation
ns and the direction for ta
king immediate steps
towards ca
dre restructuring, the Rec
cruitment Rules have
not been
suitably amended so
as to address the
grievance r
raised by the applicants.
2.10 Learne
ed senior counsel also sub
bmits that the Welfare
Officers pro
oposed to be considered
for promotion were
appointed
in the year 2020, whe
ereas the applicants
entered se
ervice as Supervisors
in the year 2017.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
17
Item no.40(C-4)
According
OA No.782/20
026
to the applicants, the
present promotional
arrangemen
nt would result in offic
cers appointed later
entering th
he promotional hierarchy
to the post of CDPO
earlier than
n the applicants, thereby
y adversely affecting
their promo
otional prospects.
2.11 In sup
pport of their case, the ap
plicants rely upon the
Recruitmen
nt Rules governing the
e post of Welfare
Officer/Prob
bation Officer/Prison We
elfare Officer, which,
inter alia, p
prescribe the following par
rticulars:
Name of the
post Numb
er of
Post
Classificati
on
Pay
Band
Grad
Pya/
scale
Whether
selectio
n or
Non-
selectio
n post
Age-limit for
Direct
Recruitment
d &
de
/Pay
e
(1)
Welfare
Officer/Proba
Officer/Prison
Welfare Office
2 3 4
5 6
2,
228*
(Two
Hund
ered
Twent
y
Eight)
*(201
6)
subje
ct to
variati
ve
depen
dent
on
work-
load
GCS
Group-B,
Non-
Gazetted,
Non-
Ministerial
PB-2
Rs.9
-
3480
Grad
Pay
Rs.4
-)
(Pre
Revi
)
Selectio
n
Not
exceeding
30 years
(Relaxable
for Govt.
Servants up
to 5 years in
accordance
with the
instructions
or orders
issued by
the Central
Govt.)
Note: This
crucial date
for
determining
the age-limit
shall be the
closing date
for receipt of
applications
from candi-
dates in
India (and
not the
closing date
tion
n
300
er
00+
de
4200
sed
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
18
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
prescribed
for those in
Assam,
Meghalaya,
Arunachal
Pradesh,
Mizoram,
Manipur,
Nagaland,
Tripura,
Sikkim,
Ladakh
Division of
Jammu and
Kashmir
State,
Lahaul and
Spiti District
and Pangi
Sub-division
of Chamba
District of
Himachal
Pradesh,
Andaman
Nicobar
Islands or
and
Lakshadwee
p).
Period
of
probatio
n, if any
Educational
other qualifi
required for
recruits
and
cations
Whether
age and
educational
qualificatio
ns
prescribed
for direct
recruits will
apply in
the case
promotion
Method of
recruitment,
whether by
direct
recruitment
or by
promotion or
by
deputation/a
bsorption &
% of the
vacancies to
be filled by
various
methods
(9) (10)
2 years
for
direct
recruits
and
Promote
es
direct
(7)
(8)
Essential:
Master's Deg
Social Wor
Master's of
(Sociology) o
Graduate Deg
Criminology
recognized
University/Ins
Desirable:- (
year's p
experience
field of Socia
(1)
gree in
Age: No
Educational
Qualificatio
n: No, but
must
possess at
least a
Bachelor’s
Degree
from
recognized
University/
Institute
15% by
promotion
failing which
by
Deputation
including
short-term
contract,
85% by
Direct
Recruitment
k, or
f Art
or Post
gree in
from a
stitute.
1) One
ractical
in the
al Work
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
19
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
in any Gove
Department/R
ized Vo
Organization
regular
capacity.
(II) Pass in H
a subject
Secondary lev
Notel: Qualifi
are relaxabic
discretion o
Competent
Authority,
reasons to
recorded in w
in the ca
candidates
otherwise
qualified.
Note 2:
qualification
regarding
experience
relaxable a
discretion o
Competent
Authority,
reasons to
recorded in w
in case
candidates
belonging
Scheduled
or Sch
Tribes, if a
stage of se
the Com
authority, is
opinion
sufficient num
candidates
these comm
possessing
requisite expe
are not likely
available to
the vac
reserved for t
In case
recruitment
promotion/de
on/absorption
grades from
promotion/de
on/absorption
made
rnment
Recogn
luntary
in a
paid
Hindi as
t of
vel.
cations
at the
of the
for
o be
writing,
se of
well
The
(s)
is/are
t the
of the
for
o be
writing.
of
to
Castes
heduled
at any
election
mpetent
of the
that
mber of
from
munities
the
erience
y to be
fill up
cancies
them.
of
by
eputati
If a DPC
exists,
what is its
compositio
n
Circums
tances
in which
UPSC to
be
consulte
d in
making
recruitm
n,
which
eputati
n to be
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
20
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
ent
13
11
12
Promotion;
House F
House M
Matron/
Boarding
and Basic Te
in PB-1 Scale
5200-20200
'Grade Pay
2400/- with
years
service in
respective
and possess
least Bac
Degree
Recognized
University/Ins
Promotion sh
subject
completion
least 2
training
prescribed
sponsored b
Department
UTCS & NIPC
the field
duties/respon
es of the po
part of suc
completion
probation.
Provided that
persons who
not com
training
promotion
the date of m
of DPC will a
considered s
to the co
that the re
training wi
completed
one year o
date of mec
DPC.
However,
persons wh
due to retire
two years, w
considered
Group 'B'
Departmen
tal
Promotion
Committee
(For
considering
Promotion:
) |
Secretary/
Principal
Secretary,
Dept. of
Social
Welfare/W
omen &
Child Dev..
Govt. of
NCT of
Delhi-
Chairman
2. Director,
Deptt. of
Social
Welfare,
GNCT of
Delhi -
Member
3. Director,
Deptt. of
Women &
Child
Developme
nt, GNCT
of Delhi
Member
4 Deputy
Secretary
(Services).
Govt. of
NCT of
Delhi -
Member
Group 'B'
Departmen
tal -
Confirmati
on
Committee
(For
considering
confirmatio
Not
applicab
le
Father/
Mother/
Asstt.
Supdt.
eachers
e of Rs.
with
of Rs.
h ten
regular
the
grades
sing at
chelor's
from
stitute.
hall be
to
of at
weeks
as
and
by the
from
CCD in
of
nsibiliti
ost', as
ccessful
of
t those
o have
mpleted
for
before
meeting
also be
subject
ondition
equired
ll be
within
of the
ting of
those
o are
within
will be
for
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
21
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/2026
exemption
completion o
training
promotion.
qualifying/elig
service are
considered
promotion,
seniors woul
be cons
provided the
not short o
requisite
qualifying/elig
service by
than half o
such
qualifying/elig
service or
years, which
less, and
successfully
completed
Probation per
promotion t
next higher
along with
juniors who
already com
such
qualifying/elig
service.
NOTE 2 Fo
purpose
computing
minimum qu
service
promotion,
service rende
a regular ba
an officer p
1.1.2006/ th
from which
Revised
structure bas
the 6
recommendat
has been ex
shall be deem
be service re
in
corresponding
Pay/Pay
extended bas
the
recommendat
of the
Commission.
from
of such
n);
1. Director
of Social
Welfare/W
omen &
Child Dev.
GNCTD-
Chairman
2. Special
Director/Ad
ditional
Director/Joi
nt Director
(Admn.) -
Member
3. District
Officers of
the Deptt.
of Social
Welfare/
Women &
Child
Welfare -
Member
for
gibility
being
for
their
ld also
sidered
ey are
of the
gibility
more
of the
gibility
two
ever is
have
their
riod for
to the
grade
their
have
mpleted
gibility
or the
of
alifying
for
the
ered on
asis by
rior to
e date
h the
Pay
sed on
CPC
tions
xtended
med to
endered
the
g
Scale
sed on
tions
Pay
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
22
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/2026
DEPUTATION
(including
term contract
Officers or
Central Govt.
Govt/U.T.
Administratio
Public
Undertaking/
Universities/R
ized Re
Institutions/
Govt Auton
Bodies/Statut
Organization'
(A) (1) H
analogous p
regular basis
parent
cadre/Depart
OR
(11) With six
service in the
rendered
appointinent
thereto on a
basis in posts
1 Rs. 5200-2
with GP o
2800/-
equivalent i
parent cad
Department;
(III) With ten
service in the
rendered
appointment
thereto on a
basis in posts
1 Rs. 5200-2
with GP o
2400/-
equivalent i
parent cad
Department;
(B) Possessi
following
educational
qualifications
experience.
(1) Masters
in Social W
Master's of Ar
(Sociology) o
short
t):
under
/ State
ons/
Sector
Recogn
esearch
Semi
nomous
tory
s:
Holding
ost on
in the
ment;
x years
e grade
after
regular
s in PB-
20200/-
of Rs.
OR
in the
re or
n years
e Grade
after
regular
s in PB-
20200/-
of Rx.
or
in the
re or
and
ng the
and
Degree
ork or
rt
or Post
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
23
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/2026
Graduate Deg
Criminology
recognized
University/
Institute,
(11) Two
practical expe
in the field of
Work in
Government
Departiment/
nized Vo
Organization
regular
capacity, and
(III) Pass in
as a subje
Secondary lev
NOTE 1:
Departmenta
officers in
feeder ca
who are in
line of pro
will not be
for considerat
appointment
depuration
Similarly,
Deputationist
not be eligib
consideration
appointment
Promotion.
(Period
deputation
including per
deputation
in another ex
post
immediately
preceding
appointment
same or some
organization/
ment of the C
Govt.
ordinarily n
exceed three
The maximu
limit
appointment
deputation
shall be
exceeding 56
as on the
date of rece
gree in
from a
years
erience
f Social
any
/Recog
luntary
in a
paid
n Hindi
ect of
vel.
The
l
the
ategory
direct
omotion
eligible
tion for
on
ts shall
ble for
for
by
of
(ISTC)
riod of
(ISTC)
x-cadre
held
this
in the
e other
Depart
Central
shall
noi to
years.
m age
for
by
(ISTC)
not
6 years,
closing
eipt of
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
24
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
applications)
NOTE 2: Fo
purpose
appointment
deputation
the
rendered o
regular basis
Officer prio
1.1.2006 (Th
from which
Revised
Structure bas
the 6th
recommendat
has
extended)sha
deemed ia
service rende
the corresp
grade P
Scale ex
based on
recommendat
of
PayCommissi
except where
has been me
more than on
revised sca
pay into one
with a co
grade pay/pa
and where
benefit will
only for the
for which
Grade Pay
Scale is the
replacement
without
upgradation.
or the
of
on
basis,
service
on a
by an
or to
he date
h the
Pay
sed on
CPC
tion
been
all be
a be
ered in
ponding
Pay/Pay
xtended
the
tions
the
on
e there
erger of
ne pre-
les of
e grade
ommon
ay scale
this
extend
post(s)
that
/Pay
normal
grade
any
2.12 Learne
ed senior counsel submit
ts that the applicants
were appoi
nted as Supervisor Grade
e-II in the year 2017
and that, u
nder the Recruitment Rule
es governing the post
of Superin
ntendent/CDPO, the p
prescribed qualifying
service for
r promotion from Superv
visor Grade-I is five
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
25
Item no.40(C-4)
years. It i
OA No.782/20
026
s contended that, had
the applicants been
considered
and promoted to Super
rvisor Grade-I at the
appropriate
e time, they would have c
commenced service in
the feeder
r grade earlier and c
could have claimed
consideratio
on under the provision re
elating to seniors who
fall short of
f the prescribed qualifying
g service by not more
than half of
f such service or two year
s, whichever is less.
2.13 In this
s context, learned senior
counsel refers to the
Recruitmen
nt Rules dated 28.11.2011
1 governing the posts
of
Superintendents/Reconci
iliation-cum-Guidance
Officer/Assi
istant Supervisor (WCW
W)/District Probation
Officer/Welf
fare Officer/Plannin
ng Officer/Child
Developme
nt Project Officer. The re
elevant particulars of
the said R
Rules, as placed on rec
ord, are reproduced
below:
Name of the
post Numb
er of
Post
Classific
ation
Pay
Band
Grade
Pya/P
scale
2 3 4
ents/Rec
Whether
selection
or Non-
selection
post
Age-limit for
Direct
Recruitment
&
e
Pay
1
Superintende
onciliation-cu
Guidance
Officer/Assist
Supervisor
(WCW)/Distri
Probation
Officer/Welfa
Officer
(FAS)/Plannin
Officer/Child
Development
5 6
80*
(2011
)
*Subj
ect to
variati
on
depen
dent
on
workl
oad
General
Central
Services,
Group-B,
Gazetted
, Non-
Ministeri
al
Pay
Band-
Rs.93
-
34800
Grade
Pay
Rs.46
Selectio
n Post
Not
exceeding 30
years
(Relaxable
for Govt.
Servants up
to 5 years in
accordance
with the
instructions
or orders
issued by the
m-
-2,
00
tant
0+
e
ct
re
600
ng
t Project
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
26
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
Officer
Central
Govt.)
Note: This
crucial date
for
determining
the age-limit
shall be the
closing date
for receipt of
applications
from candi-
dates in India
(and not the
closing date
prescribed
for those in
Assam,
Meghalaya,
Arunachal
Pradesh,
Mizoram,
Manipur,
Nagaland,
Tripura,
Sikkim,
Ladakh
Division of
Jammu and
Kashmir
State, Lahaul
and Spiti
District and
Pangi Sub-
division of
Chamba
District of
Himachal
Pradesh,
Andaman
Nicobar
Islands or
and
Lakshadweep
).
Period of
probatio
n, if any
Educational
other qualif
required for
recruits
and
fications
r direct
Whether
age and
educatio
nal
qualificat
ions
prescribe
d for
direct
recruits
will
apply in
the case
promotio
n
Method of
recruitment,
whether by
direct
recruitment
or by
promotion or
by
deputation/a
bsorption &
% of the
vacancies to
be filled by
various
methods
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
27
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
(8)
(7)
(9) (10)
2 years 75% by
promotion
failing which
by
deputation
failing both
by direct
recruitment,
25% by
Direct
recruitment
Essential:
(i) Master’s
in Social W
Home Scien
Sociology o
Development
Nutrition fr
recognized
University
(ii) 4
experience in
work includ
years admin
experience
supervisory
any Gove
semi-governm
institution
recognised
Govt/Adminis
Note
Qualifications
relaxable a
discretion o
UPSC for rea
be recorde
writing in the
candidates ot
well qualified
Note 2:
qualification(s
regarding
experience
relaxable a
discussion
UPSC for rea
be recorde
writing in the
candidates
belonging
Scheduled Ca
Scheduled T
at any sta
selection the
of the opini
sufficient num
candidates
these comm
possessing
requisite exp
are not likely
available to fi
the va
reserved for t
Desirable:
Age: No
Educatio
nal
Qualifica
tion: No,
but
should
posses
at least
a degree
from a
recogniz
ed
Universit
y or
equivale
nt
degree
Work or
nce or
r Child
t or
rom a
years
n Social
ding 2
istrative
in a
post in
ernment
ment or
by the
stration.
1:
s are
at the
of the
asons to
ed in
e case of
therwise
.
The
s)
is/are
at the
of the
asons to
ed in
e case of
to
astes or
Tribes if
age of
UPSC is
on that
mber of
from
munities
the
perience
y to be
ill up
acancies
them.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
28
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
Knowledge of
In case
recruitment
promotion/de
n/absorption,
from
promotion/de
n/absorption
made
f Hindi.
of
by
eputatio
If a DPC
exists,
what is
its
composit
ion
Circumst
ances in
which
UPSC to
be
consulte
d in
making
recruitm
ent
, grades
which
eputatio
to be
11
12
13
Promotion:
(1) Welfare
Probation
Prison
Officer in s
pay of 9300-
Grade Pay 4
PB-2 with 5
service in th
rendered
appointment
on regular ba
(a) Su
(Women) Gra
the scale of
Rs 9300-34
Grade Pay 4
PB-2 with 5
service in th
rendered
appointment
on regular ba
Note 1:
juniors who
completed
qualifying e
service are
considered
promotion,
seniors wou
be con
provided th
not short
requisite qu
eligibility ser
more than
such qu
eligibility ser
two
whichever i
and
successfully
completed
L Group
BDPC
(for
consideri
ng
promotio
n):
1.
Develop
ment
Commiss
ioner,
Govt. of
NCT of
Delhi
Chairma
n
2.
Administ
rative
Secretar
y of the
Departm
ent,
Govt. of
NCT of
Delhi
3.
Director
(Social
Welfare)
, Govt.
of NCT
of Delhi
-Member
4.
Deputy
Director
(Plannin
g), Govt.
of NCT
Consulta
tion with
UPSC
necessar
y while
making
direct
recruitm
ent and
filling
the post
by
deputati
on
Officer
Officer/
Welfare
scale of
34800+
4200 in
5 years
e grade
after
thereto
asis.
pervisor
ade-I in
pay of
4800 -
4200 in
5 years
e grade
after
thereto
asis.
Where
o have
the
eligibility
being
for
their
ld also
nsidered
ey are
of the
ualifying
rvice by
half of
ualifying
rvice, or
years,
s less,
have
their
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
29
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/2026
probation pe
probation t
next higher
along with
juniors who
already com
such qu
eligibility serv
Note 2: F
purpose
computing m
qualifying ser
promotion,
services rend
a basis by an
prior to 1-
The date from
the revised
structure ba
the 6th
recommendat
has been ex
shall be dee
be service re
in the corres
pay/pay
extended ba
the reco
dation of t
commission.
eligibility li
promotion s
prepared
reference t
date of
qualifying se
their res
grade/post.)
Deputation:
of the
Govern-ment
Government/
Territory:
(A)(1)
analogous p
regular besis;
(ii) with 5
service in th
rendered
appointment
on regular b
the scale of
Rs. 9300-
Grade Pay 4
PFI-2 or eq
in the
riod for
to the
grade
of Delbi
Member
-Member
5. An
officer
belongin
g to
SC/ST
communi
ty not
below
the rank
of
ADM/De
puty
Secretar
y,
GNCTD
in cases
where
SC/ST
candidat
es are
consider
ed
confirma
tion):
Member
1. Group
B DPC
(for
consideri
ng 1.
Develop
ments
Commiss
ioner,
-
Chairma
n
Govt. of
NCT of
Delhi 2.
Administ
rative
Secretar
y of the
Departm
ent,
Govt. of
NCT of
Delhi
their
o have
mpleted
ualifying
vice
or the
of
minimum
rvice for
the
dered on
n officer
1-2006.
m which
d pay
sed on
CPC
tions
xtended,
emed to
endered
ponding
scale
ased on
ommend
he pay
(The
st for
hall be
with
to the
rvice in
spective
Officer
Central
t/State
/Union
Holding
post on
; or
years
e grade
after
thereto
basis in
pay of
34800+
4200 in
uivalent
parent
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
30
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/2026
cadre/departm
and
(5) Possessi
educational
qualification
prescribed
column No. 7
(The depar
officers in the
category who
direct line
promotion w
be eligible
consideration
appointment
deputation.
Similarly,
deputationist
not be eligi
consi-deration
appointment
promotion).
of dep
including pe
deputation
another e
post
immediately
preceding
appointment
same or som
organization/
ment of the
Govt. shall or
not to exc
years.
maximum a
for appointm
deputation s
not exceedi
years, as
closing da
receipt
applications).
Note: For
purpose
appointment
deputation ba
service rende
a regular bas
officer prior
2006 (the da
which the
pay structure
on the 6t
recommendat
been extende
be deemed
ment,
Member
Govt. of
NCT of
Delhi 3.
Director
(Social
Welfare)
,
Member
4.
Deputy
Director
(Plannin
g), Govt.
of NCT
of Delhi
Member
ing the
under
.
rtmental
e feeder
o are in
e of
will not
e for
for
on
s shall
ible for
n for
by
(Period
putation
eriod of
in
ex-cadre
held
this
in the
me other
depart
Central
rdinarily
ceed 3
The
age-limit
ment by
shall be
ing 56
on the
te of
of
.
r the
of
on
asis, the
ered. on
is by an
to 1-1-
ate from
revised
e based
h CPC
tion has
ed) shall
to be
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
31
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
service rend
the corres
grade pay/pa
extended ba
the recomme
of the
commission
where ther
been merg
more than o
revised scale
into one gra
a common
pay/pay sca
where this
will extende
for the post
which that
pay/pay scale
normal replac
grade witho
up-gradation
ered in
ponding
ay scale
ased on
endation
pay
except
re has
ger of
one pre-
e of pay
de with
grade
le, and
benefit
ed only
t(s) for
grade
e is the
ce-ment
out any
.
2.14 Learne
ed senior counsel furthe
r draws attention to
the chart
filed as Annexure A
-7 to the Original
Application,
, setting out the dates o
f appointment of the
applicants
as Supervisor Grade-I
I, their educational
qualification
ns at the time of appoin
ntment, the dates on
which they
claim to have completed
five years of service,
and the da
ates of completion of the
eir Master's degrees.
The chart is
s reproduced below:
S.No. Name
e Date of
Appointment
as
Supervisor
Gr.II
Educational
Qualification
at the tim
of joining a
Grade-II
n
Date of
ought to be
eligible for
grade-I
(Completing
Five Years)
Date of
Completing
Master
Degree
e
as
1. Ritu
10.10.2017 MA
10-10-2022 2017
11.10.2022 2022
2. Shilp
Sriva
3. Ashu
pika
11.10.2017 Graduate
astava
09.11.2017 Graduate
09.11.2022 Pursuing
Master’s
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
32
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
24.08.2022 2014
4. Neha
Chau
a
udhary
24.08.2017 Post
Graduate
ha 11.10.2017 Graduate
5. Barkh
Rani
11.10.2022 Pursuing
Master’s
16.10.2022 Pursuing
6. Bhart
Kuma
Meen
7. Bisha
Karan
ti
ari
na
16.10.2017 Graduate
akha
12.03.2019 Post
Graduate
lata 10.08.2020 Post
Graduate
ta D/o
12.03.2024 2012
n
8. Heml
10.08.2025 2013
9. Kavit
Sh.
Ram
10. Kavit
Sh.
Kuma
11. Khya
23.08.2017 Graduate
23.08.2022 2019
Kamta
ta W/o
11.10.2017 Post
Graduate
11.10.2022 2016
Vipin
ar
ati 11.10.2017 Graduate
11.10.2022 2022
12.10.2022 2014
12. Laxm
mi Pal 12.10.2017 Post
Graduate
nakshi
13. Meen
Bhard
14. Reen
Kuma
15. Sand
Yada
16. Shikh
19.12.2017 Graduate
19.12.2022 2019
dwaj
a
ari
21.08.2017 Post
Graduate
21.08.2022 2017
dhya
22.10.2018 Post
Graduate
22.10.2023 2012
v
ha 05.07.2018 Graduate
05.07.2023 2022
02.07.2023 2013
17. Anjum
m 02.07.2018 Post
Graduate
ani
18. Shiva
Kaus
24.08.2017 Post
Graduate
ti 23.08.2017 Post
Graduate
dana
kla
24.08.2022 2013
hik
19. Swat
24/08/2022 2015
20. Vand
Shuk
22.11.2018 Post
Graduate
22.11.2023 2016
2.15 On the
e basis of the aforesaid
chart, learned senior
counsel sub
bmits that the educationa
al qualifications of the
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
33
Item no.40(C-4)
applicants h
OA No.782/20
026
have subsequently been u
upgraded and that all
the applica
ants are now stated to p
possess postgraduate
qualification
ns. He disputes the respo
ndents' reliance upon
the minim
um educational qualifica
ations prescribed for
direct recru
uitment to the respective
e posts and submits
that the a
applicants' grievance pri
marily concerns the
unequal pr
romotional avenues and
d the absence of a
dedicated I
CDS cadre.
2.16 Learne
ed senior counsel also
refers to M.A. No.
4460/2026
and submits that, by ord
er dated 27.02.2026,
this Tribuna
al had directed maintenan
nce of status quo and
had called
upon the respondents to
o place certain earlier
communica
ations issued by the Minis
stry of Social Welfare
on record. T
The order reads as follows
s:
“The pr
resent O.A. is filed by 20 Supe
ervisors Grade-II seeking
conside
eration for promotion
to the post of
CDPO/S
Superintendent in terms o
of earlier Government
commu
unications providing 75%
promotional quota,
recomm
mendations of the 5th and 7th
h CPC, Recruitment Rules
of 2011
1 and subsequent developme
ents culminating in order
dated 2
21.01.2026 passed in O.A. No.
.3278/2025.
2. Issue
e notice.
3. Mr.
G.C. Jha accepts notice on be
ehalf of Respondent No.1
and Mr
r. Varun Vats accepts notice o
on behalf of Respondent
No.2. T
They seeks some time to file re
eply.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
34
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
4. Lear
rned counsel for the applic
cant presses for interim
protect
tion.
5. At th
his stage, respondents are dir
rected to place on record
copies
of the communications/ord
ders dated 09.04.1984,
19.03.1
1985 and 13.08.1985 issued
by the Ministry of Social
Welfare
e.
5. List o
on 08.04.2026
6. Till t
the next date of hearing, sta
tus quo as on date shall
be mai
intained. Liberty is granted
to be applicants to file
addition
nal documents, if any.”
2.17 Learne
ed senior counsel submi
its that, despite the
aforesaid d
irection, the respondents
s did not comply with
the directio
on in the manner contemp
plated by the Tribunal
and subse
equently issued an o
office order dated
05.08.2026
6. The applicants rel
y upon the said
subsequent
t development in suppor
rt of their grievance
regarding t
the manner in which p
romotions are being
undertaken
n during the pendenc
cy of the Original
Application
.
2.18 Learne
ed senior counsel place
s reliance upon the
decisions o
of the Hon’ble Suprem
me Court in Census
Commissio
oner and Others v.
R. Krishnamurthy ,
(2015) 2 S
SCC 796, B.N. Nagaraj
jan and Others v.
State of Ka
Karnataka , (1979) 4 SCC
507, K. Kuppusamy
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
35
Item no.40(C-4)
and Anoth
OA No.782/20
026
her v. State of T.N. an
nd Others , (1998) 8
SCC 469;
and P.U. Joshi and Oth
hers v. Accountant
General, A
Ahmedabad and Others
s , (2003) 2 SCC 632.
The relevan
nt portions relied upon b
by the applicants are
reproduced
below:
2.19 In Ce
ensus Commissioner
and Others v. R.
Krishnamu
urthy , (2015) 2 SCC 796
6, paragraph 33 reads
as under:
“33. Fr
rom the aforesaid pronouncem
ment of law, it is clear as
noon d
day that it is not within the
domain of the courts to
embark
k upon an enquiry as to whe
ether a particular public
policy is
s wise and acceptable or whet
ther a better policy could
be evol
lved. The court can only inter
rfere if the policy framed
is abso
lutely capricious or not inform
med by reasons or totally
arbitrar
ry and founded ipse dixi
it offending the basic
require
ment of Article 14 of the
Constitution. In certain
matters
s, as often said, there can b
be opinions and opinions
but the
e court is not expected to sit a
as an appellate authority
on an o
opinion.”
2.20 In B.
N. Nagarajan and O
Others v. State of
Karnataka
a , (1979) 4 SCC 507, pa
aragraph 25 reads as
under:
“25. Ap
part from repelling the conte
ention that regularisation
connote
es permanence, these observa
ations furnish the second
reason
for rejection of the argumen
nt advanced on behalf of
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
36
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
the pro
omotees and that reason is
that when rules framed
under A
Article 309 of the Constitution
n of India are in force, no
regular
risation is permissible in ex
xercise of the executive
powers
s of the Government under
Article 162 thereof in
contrav
vention of the rules. The r
regularisation order was
made lo
ong after the Probation Rules,
, the Seniority Rules and
the Re
ecruitment Rules were prom
mulgated and could not
therefo
ore direct something which wo
ould do violence to any of
the pro
o-visions thereof. Regularisatio
on in the present case, if
it mea
nt permanence operative fro
om November 1, 1956,
would h
have the effect of giving sen
iority to promotees over
the dire
ect recruits who, in the absenc
ce of such regularisation,
would
rank senior to the former b
because of the Seniority
Rules r
read with the Probation Rules
and may in consequence
also con
nfer on the promotees a right
t of priority in the matter
of shar
ring the quota under the Rec
cruitment Rules. In other
words,
the regularisation order
r, in colourings the
appoint
tments of promotees as As
ssistant Engineers with
perman
nence would run counter to
the rules framed under
Article
309 of the Constitution of In
ndia. What could not be
done un
nder the three sets of Rules a
as they stood, would thus
be achi
ieved by an executive fiat. A
And such a course is not
permiss
sible because an act done
in the exercise of the
executi
ive power of the Governme
ent, as already stated,
cannot
override rules framed und
der Article 309 of the
Constit
tution.”
2.21 In K.
Kuppusamy and Anoth
her v. State of T.N.
and Other
rs , (1998) 8 SCC 469, p
paragraph 3 reads as
under:
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
37
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
“3 The
short point on which these a
appeals must succeed is
that th
he Tribunal fell into an error
in taking the view that
since th
he Government had indicated
d its intention to amend
the rele
evant rules, its action in proce
eeding on the assumption
of such
h amendment could not be
said to be irrational or
arbitrar
ry and, therefore, the conse
equential orders passed
have to
o be upheld. We are afraid this
s line of approach cannot
be cou
untenanced. The relevant rule
es, it is admitted, were
framed
d under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution.
They
are statutory rules. Statu
utory rules cannot be
overrid
dden by executive orders or ex
xecutive practice. Merely
because
e the Government had taken
a decision to amend the
rules d
does not mean that the rule s
stood obliterated. Till the
rule is
s amended, the rule app
plies. Even today the
amendm
ment has not been effected. A
As and when it is effected
ordinar
rily it would be prospective in
n nature unless expressly
or by n
necessary implication found t
to be retrospective. The
Tribuna
al was, therefore, wrong in ign
noring the rule.”
2.22 In P.U
U. Joshi and Others v. A
Accountant General,
Ahmedaba
ad and Others , (2003) 2
2 SCC 632, paragraph
11 reads as
s under:
“11. So fa
ar as the grievances of the ap
ppellants and respondent
private f p
parties in the above cases are
concerned, they have no
sound or
valid basis in law. Even be
fore bifurcation on 1-3-
1984, the
posts of Supervisors, Selecti
ion Grade Supervisors as
well as S
ection Officers and Selection
n Grade Section Officers
existed se
eparately. Section Officers we
ere considered senior to
Supervisor
rs and promotion to higher p
osts of Accounts Officers
was open
to Section Officers only and
not to Supervisors. After
bifurcation
n, since there was no cadre of
f Supervisors in the Audit
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
38
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
Offices, th
he question of accommodat
ting them in the Audit
Offices as
Supervisors did not arise. Wi
ith the implementation of
the recom
mmendations of the Fourth C
Central Pay Commission,
"selection
grades" were abolished from
m all non-gazetted cadres
in all dep
partments of the Governmen
nt of India all over the
country, in
ncluding the Department of I
IA & AD. As observed by
the Bench
of CAT at Cuttack which held
d in favour of the private
parties on
n some other ground, it will b
be too late in the day to
put the clo
ock back by claiming to resur
rrect the abolished those
selection g
grade which was found to be
e already non-functional,
too. As n
oticed supra, the supervisory
ry cadre for A&E Offices
w.e.f. 1-4
4-1987 came to consist of (a
a) Section Officers 20%
(SOGE-qua
alified hands); (b) Assistant a
a Accounts Officers 80%
(SOGE-qua
alified hands with further ex
xperience of three years'
regular se
ervice in the grade); and (c)
Supervisors [unqualified
hands to
the extent whenever clause
s (a) and (b) were not
available
only]. As noticed earlier, a
Supervisor (unqualified)
has to und
dertake SOG Examination to
be promoted as Section
Officer an
nd thereafter only get prom
moted as AAO. Merely
because t
the pay scales were similar
rly granted to b these
unqualified
d Supervisors on a par with
h Section Officers alone
apparently
y due to alteration and restru
ucturing in the set-up of
offices Su
upervisors, who had not e
even passed the SOG
Examinatio
on, therefore, could neith
her be appointed on
promotion
n as Section Officers nor could
d claim equal status with
the SOG
Examination-qualified person
ns to straight away get
promoted
as AAOs, to which the feeder
r category is only Section
Officers an
nd c not Supervisors. It is n
necessary to notice here
that Super
rvisors even earlier could not
t have been promoted to
the higher
r post of Accounts Officers. In
n addition to it, the other
criterion o
of three years' regular serv
vice as Section Officer,
before bec
coming eligible for considera
ation to be appointed as
AAOS on p
promotion also must be satis
sfied. The Cuttack Bench
of CAT,
which decided the matter
and which decision is
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
39
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
challenged
d by the Department in d Ci
ivil Appeal No. 10983 of
1996, com
mmitted a grave error in takin
ng for granted equality in
status and
d grade of persons like the re
espondent private parties
on a par w
with Section Officers with hig
gher qualifications merely
because a
a common seniority list was pr
repared ignoring the fact
that it wa
as not for purposes of furthe
er promotion but for the
limited pu
urpose of giving only the b
benefit of non-functional
selection g
grade.”
2.23 Learne
ed senior counsel submit
ts that the aforesaid
judgments
have been relied upon i
n the context of the
applicants'
challenge to the existing
promotional structure
and the ne
eed for the respondents
to act in accordance
with the
applicable Recruitmen
nt Rules and the
communica
ations relied upon by the a
applicants.
3. In the
e counter affidavit filed on
n behalf of the official
respondent
ts, the principal objectio
n raised is that the
applicants
do not possess an enfor
rceable right to claim
direct prom
motion to the post of S
Superintendent/CDPO,
which is a
a Level-7 post, withou
ut first fulfilling the
eligibility c
conditions prescribed u
nder the applicable
Recruitmen
nt Rules.
3.1 The of
fficial respondents submi
t that the applicants
were appoi
nted as Supervisor (Wome
en) Grade-II in Level-
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
40
Item no.40(C-4)
5 of the Pa
OA No.782/20
026
ay Matrix and that their
promotional channel
comprises
two successive stages.
The first stage is
promotion
from Supervisor (Women
n) Grade-II, Level-5,
to Supervis
sor (Women) Grade-I, Le
evel-6, subject to the
qualifying s
service prescribed under t
the Recruitment Rules
notified on
29.01.2025. The second
d stage is promotion
from Sup
pervisor (Women) Gra
ade-I, Level-6, to
Superintend
dent/CDPO, Level-7, subj
ject to completion of
five years
of regular service in th
he feeder grade, as
prescribed
under the applicable Recr
uitment Rules.
3.2 Accord
ding to the official respon
dents, the prescribed
qualifying
service for the app
licants' promotional
hierarchy is
s six years in Supervisor
Grade-II followed by
five years i
n Supervisor Grade-I, ma
aking a total of eleven
years befor
re they become eligible
for consideration for
promotion
to the post of Superi
ntendent/CDPO. The
respondent
ts further submit that the
applicants who have
recently b
been promoted to Supe
ervisor Grade-I are
undergoing
the prescribed probation
n period of two years
and would
d be considered for fu
urther promotion in
accordance
with the applicable Rule
es upon fulfilment of
the requisit
te conditions.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
41
Item no.40(C-4)
3.3 The o
OA No.782/20
026
fficial respondents have
placed reliance upon
the followin
ng comparative statemen
nt to distinguish the
promotiona
al hierarchy of the Superv
visor cadre from that
of the Hous
se Father/House Mother/M
Matron cadre:
Sr.
No
Name
e of Post First Promotional
Post & Time
S
P
P
rvisor Gr- Supervisor Gr-I
– 6 years
Second
Promotional
Post & Time
Total time
1 Super
II
S
/C
y
e
Superintendent
11 years
CDPO – 5
years
2 House
Fathe
Matro
Welfare Officer –
10 years
S
/C
y
Superintendent
15 years
r/Mother/
CDPO – 5
years
n
3.4 The of
fficial respondents submi
it that the applicants
have sough
ht to compare their promo
otional prospects with
those of of
fficers belonging to diffe
erent cadres, without
appreciatin
g the distinct entry
levels, prescribed
qualification
ns, cadre structures
and promotional
hierarchies
applicable to the resp
pective posts. It is
contended
that the promotional av
enues of each cadre
are govern
ed by its own Recruitme
ent Rules and that a
comparison
n based merely on the ti
me taken to reach a
higher post
t cannot, by itself, establis
sh discrimination.
3.5 The o
official respondents furth
her submit that the
Departmen
t of Women and Child
d Development was
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
42
Item no.40(C-4)
vested wit
OA No.782/20
026
th cadre control only
vide order dated
24.07.2020
0. Thereafter, the pr
rocess of framing
Recruitmen
nt Rules for Supervisor (W
Women) Grade-I was
undertaken
n, involving consultation
ns with the Service
Departmen
t, DoPT, Law Department
and other competent
authorities.
The process culminated
in the notification of
the Recruit
ment Rules in January 20
025. According to the
respondent
ts, the Department
could not initiate
promotions
s to Supervisor Grade-I
before the statutory
Recruitmen
nt Rules prescribing the
e relevant eligibility
conditions a
and method of selection h
had been notified.
3.6 It is
further submitted that
t, immediately after
notification
of the said Rules, the
Department initiated
and comple
eted the process of promo
otion from Supervisor
Grade-II t
o Supervisor Grade-I i
n respect of those
officials wh
ho fulfilled the prescribed
eligibility conditions.
The respon
dents deny the allegation
that the promotional
channel wa
as deliberately blocked o
r that the applicants
were denied
d consideration despite th
he existence of a duly
notified sta
tutory framework.
3.7 The o
official respondents als
so submit that 20
sanctioned
posts of Supervisor (W
Women) Grade-I had
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
43
Item no.40(C-4)
earlier stoo
OA No.782/20
026
od deemed abolished on
account of remaining
vacant for
more than five years u
under the applicable
Governmen
nt instructions. The Depar
rtment has, however,
initiated th
e process for revival of t
these posts, which is
stated to b
be under consideration b
before the competent
authority.
3.8 With r
regard to the applicants' c
challenge to the cadre
structure
and the Recruitment
Rules, the official
respondent
ts contend that the cre
eation, abolition and
restructurin
ng of cadres, prescripti
on of qualifications,
determinati
ion of eligibility condition
ns and formulation of
promotiona
al avenues are matters o
f policy falling within
the domain
n of the competent Gov
vernment, subject to
constitution
nal limitations. In suppor
rt of this contention,
they rely u
upon the judgment of t
he Hon'ble Supreme
Court in P
P.U. Joshi (supra) , w
herein it has been
observed th
hat questions relating to
the constitution and
restructurin
ng of cadres, prescription
of qualifications and
conditions
of service, including prom
motional avenues, fall
within the
domain of policy and th
at employees do not
possess an
n indefeasible right to in
nsist that the service
rules remai
n unchanged.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
44
Item no.40(C-4)
3.9 The o
OA No.782/20
026
official respondents furth
er contend that the
applicants
cannot claim parity with
h the Welfare Officer
cadre mere
ely on the ground that so
ome of them possess
postgradua
te qualifications. It is
submitted that the
Recruitmen
nt Rules governing S
Supervisor Grade-II
prescribe a
a Bachelor's degree as th
he minimum essential
qualification
n, whereas the Recruitm
ment Rules governing
the post of
f Welfare Officer prescrib
be a Master's degree.
According t
to the respondents, eligib
ility is determined by
the qualific
cations prescribed under
the applicable Rules
and not b
y the higher educationa
al qualifications that
individual e
employees may possess
over and above the
prescribed
minimum.
3.10 The o
official respondents disp
pute the applicants'
contention
that they were eligibl
e for promotion to
Supervisor
Grade-I in 2022 and t
that the Department
failed to co
nvene the Departmental P
Promotion Committee
at the relev
vant time. It is submitted
that the Recruitment
Rules for Su
upervisor Grade-I were no
otified only in January
2025 and t
hat, in the absence of the
e applicable statutory
Rules, prom
motions to that post co
ould not have been
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
45
Item no.40(C-4)
undertaken
OA No.782/20
026
n earlier in accordance
with the prescribed
procedure.
3.11 The re
espondents further subm
it that the applicants
cannot rely
y upon the provision conc
cerning consideration
of seniors w
who fall short of the qua
lifying service by not
more than
half of the prescribed p
period or two years,
whichever
is less, contained in th
e Recruitment Rules
governing S
Superintendent/CDPO. Ac
ccording to them, the
said provisi
ion operates only in cases
s where juniors in the
relevant fe
eeder grade have comp
leted the prescribed
qualifying
service and are bei
ing considered for
promotion.
Since Supervisor Grad
de-I and the other
specified c
categories constitute the
e feeder grades for
promotion
to Superintendent/CD
PO, the applicants
cannot invo
oke the aforesaid provision
n merely on the basis
of their leng
gth of service in Superviso
or Grade-II.
3.12 It is a
lso contended by the offi
icial respondents that
the applica
ants entered service in
2017, whereas the
bifurcation
of the Supervisor cadr
re and the relevant
service stru
ucture were already in e
existence before their
appointmen
nt. The Recruitment
Rules governing
Superintend
dent/CDPO were notifi
ied in 2011. The
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
46
Item no.40(C-4)
respondent
OA No.782/20
026
ts accordingly submit
that the applicants
entered se
rvice under an existing
statutory framework
and canno
ot claim an automatic
right to have that
framework
altered merely becau
use its promotional
structure d
does not meet their e
expectations. In this
context, re
liance is also placed upon
n paragraph 24 of the
judgment d
dated 21.01.2026 passed
d by this Tribunal in
O.A. No. 32
278/2025, titled Ritu v. GN
NCTD .
3.13 The o
official respondents furthe
er draw attention to
the judgme
ent dated 06.03.2023 pa
assed by the Hon'ble
High Court
t of Delhi in W.P. (C) N
No. 8455/2017. It is
submitted
that the said judgment
t contains directions
concerning
the completion of pr
romotion of eligible
Persons wi
th Disabilities (PwD), inc
cluding directions for
monitoring
the promotion proce
ss and a warning
regarding p
possible contempt procee
dings in the event of
non-compli
ance with the prescribed t
timeline.
3.14 Accord
ding to the official respon
ndents, the promotion
process in
question includes eligi
ible PwD candidates
whose sta
tutory and constitutiona
al rights under the
Rights of P
Persons with Disabilities A
Act, 2016 cannot be
deferred o
or diluted on account
of the applicants'
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
47
Item no.40(C-4)
apprehensio
OA No.782/20
026
ons. The respondents
submit that the
Departmen
t has already promoted
PwD candidates from
Supervisor
Grade-II in compliance w
with the directions of
the Hon'ble
e High Court and that f
further compliance in
respect of
f Group-B gazetted po
osts remains to be
undertaken
n. It is, therefore, contend
ded that no direction
should be
issued in the present pro
oceedings which may
impede co
mpliance with the bindi
ng judgment of the
Hon'ble Hig
gh Court.
4. A cou
nter reply has also bee
en filed on behalf of
private resp
pondent Nos. 10, 11, 13,
15 and 39. The other
respondent
ts have not filed their cou
unter replies. Learned
counsel app
pearing for the private res
spondents adopts the
relevant av
verments contained in th
he counter reply and
opposes the
e reliefs sought by the app
plicants.
4.1 Learne
ed counsel for the private
respondents submits
that the a
applicants' case procee
ds on an incorrect
comparison
n between two distinct fe
eeder cadres, namely
Supervisor
Grade-I and Welfare Off
ficer. It is contended
that the tw
wo posts occupy the sa
me level in the Pay
Matrix but
are governed by distinc
t entry requirements
and promo
otional channels. Accord
ding to the private
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
48
Item no.40(C-4)
respondent
OA No.782/20
026
ts, the applicants, havi
ing initially entered
service as
Supervisor Grade-II in
Level-5, must first
qualify for
promotion to Superviso
r Grade-I in Level-6
and thereaf
fter complete the prescrib
bed qualifying service
in that grad
de before they can be con
sidered for promotion
to Superint
endent/CDPO.
4.2 In sup
pport of this submission, l
earned counsel relies
upon the
following comparative h
hierarchical structure
placed on r
record:
“1. H
Hierarchical structure
SUPERINTENDENT/CD
el-7/GP Rs.4600/-/Pay Rs.44,
DPO
Lev
900 – 1,42,400
n/Direct
Route: Through Promotion
5 years
5
5 years
WELFARE OFFICER
SUPERV
Level-6 / G
VISOR GRADE-I
W
Level-
GP Rs.4200/- /Pay
400 – 1,12,400
-6 / GP Rs.4200/- / Pay
Rs.35,4
Route: 1
Feeder cad
Rs.
Route:
.35,400/- -1,12,400
00% Promotion
re to Suptd/CDPO
Direct Entry & Promotion
er cadre to Suptd/CDPO
Feede
10 years
6
6 years
SE FATHER / MOTHER
SUPERVI
Level-5 / G
ISOR GRADE-II
GP Rs.2800/- / Pay
HOUS
/MATRON
-4 / GP Rs.2400/- / Pay
Rs.25,500 – 81,100
Rs.29,
Route: Dir
200 – 92,300
rect Entry (2017)
Level-
R
Route:
Grade II to
Total 11 years
Direct Entry & Promotion
Supervisor
Suptd/CDPO:
House
Suptd/C
Father/Mother to
CDPO: Total 15 years
Both th
require
he posts of Welfare Officer
and Supervisor Grade-I
ce of 05 (five) years in
a minimum qualifying servi
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
49
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
Level-6
next hig
6 of the Pay Matrix for eligib
ility to promotion to the
gher post.
Note:-
1. S
Supervisor Grade-II to Superv
visor Grade-I: Applicants
were ap
ppointed/recruited directly on
n Level-5 in 2017 for the
post of
f Supervisor Grade-II, and we
ere recently promoted to
Superv
visor Grade-I vide order dated
d 27.11.2025; they have
entered
d the feeder cadre.
Welfare
e Officer: Appointed/recruited
d directly on Level-6 in
2020 fo
or the post of Welfare Officer,
r, and entered the feeder
cadre in
n 2020.
2. T
The minimum qualifying ser
rvice prescribed in the
Recruit
tment Rules for the promotio
onal posts in the above
hierarch
hy has been kept in accorda
ance with the guidelines
issued
by the Department of Perso
onnel & Training (DoPT)
vide
O.M. No.AB-14017/61/2
2008-Estt.(RR) dated
24.03.2
2009, which have subsequ
uently been reiterated
through
h DoPT O.M. No.AB-14017/
/4/2021-Estt.(RR) dated
20.09.2
2022.”
4.3 Learne
ed counsel for the private
respondents submits
that both
Supervisor Grade-I and
Welfare Officer are
Level-6 pos
sts and that the applicab
ble Recruitment Rules
prescribe fi
ve years of qualifying ser
rvice in the respective
grades for
consideration for promo
otion to the post of
Superintend
dent/CDPO. It is further
r submitted that the
applicants w
were recruited directly as
s Supervisor Grade-II
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
50
Item no.40(C-4)
in 2017 an
OA No.782/20
026
nd were promoted to Sup
pervisor Grade-I only
vide order
dated 27.11.2025, wher
reas Welfare Officers
entered the
e feeder cadre in 2020.
4.4 In this
s regard, the private respo
ondents rely upon the
guidelines
issued by the Departme
ent of Personnel and
Training (D
DoPT) vide O.M. No. AB-
-14017/61/2008-Estt.
(RR) dated
24.03.2009, stated to ha
ve been reiterated by
O.M. No. A
B-14017/4/2021-Estt. (RR
R) dated 20.09.2022.
It is conten
nded that the qualifying
service prescribed in
the relevan
nt Recruitment Rules is
consistent with the
aforesaid g
guidelines and that the ap
pplicants cannot seek
relaxation o
of the prescribed eligibilit
ty conditions through
the present
t proceedings.
4.5 Learne
ed counsel for the private
e respondents further
submits th
at the applicants' conten
ntion regarding their
seniority ov
ver Welfare Officers does
not, by itself, confer
upon them
m a right to promotio
on to the post of
Superintend
dent/CDPO. It is argued
d that eligibility for
consideratio
on must be determined w
with reference to the
feeder cadr
re and the qualifying serv
vice prescribed under
the applica
able Recruitment Rules.
. The fact that an
employee e
entered service earlier in
n a lower grade does
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
51
Item no.40(C-4)
not autom
OA No.782/20
026
atically entitle such em
ployee to promotion
ahead of a
an officer who entered t
he prescribed feeder
grade earlie
er.
4.6 Learne
ed counsel also opposes
the reliefs sought in
prayer clau
ses (c), (d) and (e) of the
e Original Application,
which read
as follows:
“c. For
an order appointing/promotio
n of all the petitioners as
the Ch
hild Development Project O
Officer in the existing
vacanci
ies with immediate effect.
d. Pass
s an order directing Respond
dent Department that no
welfare
e officer be appointed against
the vacancy of the CDPO
till such
h time the 20 applicant are app
pointed as CDPOs.
e. For
an order restraining the Del
lhi Government and the
Departm
ment of Women and Ch
hild Development from
promot
ting Welfare Officers as CDPOs
s in future.”
4.7 It is su
ubmitted that the applican
nts cannot be granted
promotion
to the post of CDPO with
hout first fulfilling the
eligibility c
conditions prescribed u
nder the applicable
Recruitmen
nt Rules. The private
respondents further
contend tha
at a direction restraining
the Department from
considering
g or promoting eligible W
Welfare Officers would
be contrar
ry to the statutory fra
amework and could
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
52
Item no.40(C-4)
adversely a
OA No.782/20
026
affect the rights of emplo
oyees who satisfy the
prescribed
eligibility conditions.
4.8 Learne
ed counsel for the priva
ate respondents also
submits th
hat the challenge to the
e bifurcation of the
Supervisor
cadre and the Recruitm
ment Rules cannot be
accepted m
merely on the basis of a
comparison with the
promotiona
al avenues available to
another cadre. It is
contended
that the applicants' princ
cipal grievance, at its
highest, co
oncerns the delay in th
heir promotion from
Supervisor
Grade-II to Superviso
or Grade-I and the
consequent
tial effect of such del
ay on their future
eligibility fo
or promotion to Superinten
ndent/CDPO.
4.9 Referr
ring to the relevant plead
dings in the Original
Application,
, learned counsel submits
s that the applicants'
case conc
cerning the provision
relating to the
consideratio
on of seniors along with
juniors is based on
the assertio
on that, had they been pro
omoted to Supervisor
Grade-I in
2022, they would ha
ave commenced the
qualifying s
service required for furth
her promotion earlier.
The relevan
nt pleading reads as follow
ws:
“f. Fur
rthermore, the Recruitment
Rules of 2011, Grade-I
require
s 5 years’ service, with a cla
use that seniors short of
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
53
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
qualifyi
ing service by not more th
han half (or two years,
whichev
ver is less) must also be
considered along with
juniors.
. In such a case has the p
present applicants been
promot
ted to Grade-I in 2022 agai
inst available vacancies,
they w
would have started counting
service for CDPO and
would h
have entered the zone of cons
sideration under the half-
service
protection clause mentioned i
in the RR of 2011.”
4.10 Learne
ed counsel for the private
respondents submits
that the af
foresaid contention does
not confer upon the
applicants a
an automatic right to pro
omotion. At best, the
provision r
elied upon by the applic
cants may entitle an
eligible sen
ior to consideration along
g with juniors, subject
to fulfilmen
nt of the conditions specifie
ed in the Recruitment
Rules. It
is contended that entry
y into the zone of
consideratio
on cannot be equated
with an indefeasible
right to be
appointed to the promotio
onal post.
4.11 Learne
ed counsel further submi
ts that the challenge
to the Rec
cruitment Rules, includin
ng the bifurcation of
Supervisor
Grade-II and Superviso
or Grade-I, must be
examined
in the context of the
applicable statutory
framework
and the distinct promotio
onal hierarchies of the
respective
cadres. It is contended
that the applicants
cannot clai
m parity with Welfare O
Officers solely on the
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
54
Item no.40(C-4)
basis of
OA No.782/20
026
their date of initial a
appointment or the
educational
l qualifications subsequen
tly acquired by them.
4.12 Learne
ed counsel also submi
ts that the cadre-
restructurin
ng exercise referred to b
y the applicants was
initiated du
uring the pendency of the
e Original Application
and that th
e mere initiation of such
an exercise does not,
by itself, cr
reate an enforceable righ
ht to promotion or to
amendmen
t of the existing Recru
itment Rules in the
manner sou
ught by the applicants.
4.13 Learne
ed counsel accordingly o
opposes the grant of
the reliefs
sought in the Original Ap
pplication, particularly
the directi
ions for immediate pro
omotion of all the
applicants
to the post of CDPO
O, restraint against
promotion
of Welfare Officers an
nd quashing of the
existing Rec
cruitment Rules, in the ab
bsence of fulfilment of
the eligibili
ty conditions prescribed
under the applicable
statutory fr
ramework.
5. The r
ival submissions of lear
rned counsel for the
parties ha
ave been heard, and
the pleadings and
documents
placed on record have
been taken note of.
The matter
r is considered in the lig
ght of the respective
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
55
Item no.40(C-4)
contentions
OA No.782/20
026
s advanced by the ap
plicants, the official
respondent
ts and the private respond
dents.
6. ANALY
YSIS
6.1 In ab
bove factual backdrop, a
pplication for joining
together ca
annot be allowed straight a
away.
6.2. Rule
4 of the Central Adm
ministrative Tribunal
(Procedure)
) Rules, 1987, prescribe
es the procedure for
filing appli
ications before the Trib
bunal. The relevant
provisions t
thereof are reproduced h
hereinbelow for ready
reference:
“4
4. Procedure for filing applicat
tions.—
(
F
a
a
to
a
B
1) An application to the Tribu
Form I by the applicant in pers
nal shall be presented in
son or by an agent or by
duly authorised legal practit
ny other officer authorised in
o receive the same, or be sen
ioner to the Registrar or
writing by the Registrar
nt by registered post with
cknowledgment due addresse
Bench concerned.
ed to the Registrar of the
(5
(
p
is
o
in
5)(a) Notwithstanding anythin
1) to (3), the Tribunal may
person to join together and file
ng contained in sub-rules
y permit more than one
e a single application if it
the cause and the nature
s satisfied, having regard to t
f relief prayed for, that they
n the matter.
have a common interest
(b
a
in
a
p
b) Such permission may a
also be granted to an
ersons desirous of joining
ssociation representing the pe
n a single application, provi
ded, however, that the
class/grade/categories of
has been filed, provided
pplication shall disclose the c
persons on whose behalf it h
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
56
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
th
a
hat at least one affected
person joins such an
pplication.”
[A
2
Added by G.S.R. 1000(E), d
24.10.1988).]
ated 11.10.1988 (w.e.f.
6.3 Having
g regard to the cause of a
action and the nature
of the relief
f, there has to be a comm
mon interest. Can it be
said that S
upervisor Grade II and Su
upervisor Grade I can
be placed in
n one bucket, given that i
nterest is common?
6.4 A ref
ference is drawn to the
decision rendered in
State of
Karnataka And Other
s v. Ameerbi And
Others (2
2006 INSC 969), where
ein, the Apex Court
observed as
s under:-
“Differe
ent tests applied, even for det
termining the relationship
of emp
ployer and employees have r
recently been noticed by
this Co
ourt in District Rehabilitation
n Officer & Ors. v. Jay
Kishore
e Maity & Ors. [2006 (11) SCA
ALE 545]. In that case, in
almost
similar project, the emplo
oyees appointed by the
District
t Rehabilitation Centre claime
ed themselves to be the
Central
l Government employees. Eac
ch case, therefore, has to
be cons
sidered on its own merits. This
s Court cannot determine
a lis on
nly on sympathy. In Ramakrish
hna Kamat and Others v.
State o
of Karnataka and Others [(200
03) 3 SCC 374] albeit in
the lig
ht of right of regularization
n in service, this Court
opined:
:
"It is c
clear from the order of the le
earned single Judge and
looking
g to the very directions given
a very sympathetic view
was tak
ken. We do not find it either
r just or proper to show
any fur
rther sympathy in the given fa
acts and circumstances of
the cas
se. While being sympathetic to
to the persons who come
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
57
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
before
the court the courts canno
ot at the same time be
unsymp
pathetic to the large numb
ber of eligible persons
waiting
g for a long time in a long (S
SIC) seeking employment
[See al
lso Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram
Lal and Others, (2005) 2
SCC 63
38, State of Bihar & Ors. v. A
Amrendra Kumar Mishra,
2006 (9
9) SCALE 549 and Regional M
Manager, SBI v. Mahatma
Mishra,
2006 (11) SCALE 258] It is a
also not a case where the
doctrine
e of parity of employment ca
an be invoked. It is true
that no
omenclature of a term of pay
yment is not decisive but
the sub
bstance is as was held in Jay
ya Bachchan v. Union of
India a
and Others [(2006) 5 SCC 26
6], but the question has
to be d
determined having regard to th
he issue involved. We are
concern
ned herein with only one que
estion, viz., whether the
respond
dents are holders of any civ
vil post. We are, having
regard
to the materials on record, o
of the view they are not.
Keeping
g in view of the facts and cir
rcumstances of this case,
we are
of the opinion that the Tribun
nal has no jurisdiction to
enterta
ain the application. The
appeals are allowed
accordi
ingly.”
6.5 Where
eas the rights and ent
itlements of private
respondent
ts have flowed from the
provisions of the JJ
Act. It can
nnot be gainsaid that t
the applicant(s) and
private res
spondents are counterp
parts and must be
treated equ
ually.
6.6 The f
fact that a group of worke
ers, initially recruited
via a specif
fic scheme, ICDS, were ev
ventually transitioned
into perma
nent positions under the
2007 and 2017 Rules
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
58
Item no.40(C-4)
does not
OA No.782/20
026
provide sufficient groun
ds to determine an
infringemen
nt of Articles 14 and 16 of
f the Constitution.
6.7 Under
RR’s, both the Superviso
or(s) Grade I and the
Welfare Off
ficer have been placed un
nder one set of RR’s,
equally plac
ced, having identical stipu
ulations, that is to say
that the
e Department of
Social Welfare,
Superintend
dents/Reconciliation
cum-Guidance
Officer/Assi
istant Supervisor (WCW
W)/District Probation
Officer/Wel
fare Officer/Plannin
ng Officer/Child
Developme
nt Project Officer, Recruit
ment Rules, 2011:
Promot
tion:
(i)Welfa
are Officer/ Probation Officer/
/Prison Welfare Officer in
scale of
f pay of 9300-34800+ Grade
Pay 4200 in PB-2 with 5
years’
service in the grade rend
dered after appointment
thereto
o on regular basis.
(ii) Sup
pervisor (Women) Grade-I in
the scale of pay of Rs.
9300-3
34800+ Grade Pay 4200 in PB
B-2 with 5 years’ service
in the g
grade rendered after appoint
tment thereto on regular
basis.
6.8 In R P
Prabha Devi v Union of
f India (1988) 2 SCC
233 , a two
Judge Bench of the Apex
Court formulated the
principle in
the following terms:
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
59
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
“The r
rule-making authority is com
mpetent to frame rules
laying
down eligibility conditions fo
r promotion to a higher
post. W
When such an eligibility condi
ition has been laid down
by serv
vice rules, it cannot be said th
hat a direct recruit who is
senior
to the promotees is not requ
uired to comply with the
eligibilit
ty condition and he is entitl
led to be considered for
promot
tion to the higher post mer
rely on the basis of his
seniorit
ty.
… Seni
iority in a particular cadre d
does not entitle a public
servant
t for promotion to a higher p
post unless he fulfils the
eligibilit
ty condition prescribed by the
e relevant rules. A person
must b
be eligible for promotion
having regard to the
qualifica
cations prescribed for the p
post before he can be
conside
ered for promotion. Seniority
ty will be relevant only
amongs
st persons eligible. Seniority c
cannot be substituted for
eligibilit
ty nor can override it in the
matter of promotion to
the nex
xt higher post.” Seniority an
nd eligibility are distinct
concep
ts in service jurisprudence. S
Seniority by itself cannot
prevail
where a senior lacks eligib
bility for promotion to a
higher p
post.”
6.9 While in
nterpreting a Statute or in
n challenging RRs, we
may highlig
ght the observations made
e by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in its
recent decision in the cas
se of Sajithabai And
Ors versu
us The Kerala Water A
Authority And Ors.
decided on
18.03.2025, the releva
nt excerpts of which
are quoted
hereunder hereunder:-
"28. It
t is trite law that the mo
re absurd a suggested
conclus
sion of construction is, the m
more the court will lean
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
60
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
against
t that conclusion. That is or
rdinarily so whether one
is cons
struing a contract or a statu
ute. [See: Hatzl v. XL
Insura
ance Co. Ltd. (2009) EWCA
Civ. 223].
29. Thi
is Court in K.P. Varghese vs
s. Income Tax Officer,
Ernaku
ulam and Another, (1981)
4 SCC 173 has held as
under:
-
"6. ...
..It is now a well-settled
well- settled rule of
constru
uction that where the plain pla
in literal interpretation of
a statu
utory provision produces a
manifestly absurd and
unjust
result which could never hav
ve been intended by the
legislat
ture, the court may modify th
he language used by the
legislat
ture or even "do some violenc
ce" to it, so as to achieve
the obv
vious intention of the legislatur
re and produce a rational
constru
uction ( vide Luke v.
. Inland Revenue
Commi
issioner [(1963) AC 557] )
....."
6.10 The A
pex Court in Bishwajit D
Dey vs. The State of
Assam, Cr
iminal Appeal No.87 of 20
025 has recently held
as under:
“The p
presumption against absurdit
ty is found in the brief
observa
ation of Lord Saville agreeing
g with his colleagues in
the cas
se of Noone (on the applicatio
on of Noone) v. Governor
of HMP
P Drake Hall [2010] UKSC 30
0 30]. Lord Saville says
simply:
:
"I wou
ld allow this appeal. For the
e reasons given by Lord
Phillips
and Lord Mance, I have no do
oubt that by one route or
another
r the legislation must be co
onstrued so as to avoid
what w
would otherwise produce irra
ational and indefensible
results
that Parliament could not hav
ve intended."
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
61
Item no.40(C-4)
6.11 In
OA No.782/20
026
Sudhakar Baburao N
Nangnure Etc. Vs
Noreshwa
r Raghunathrao Shend
de & Ors. 2017 INSC
1020, the
ruling emphasizes the i
mportance of timely
action and
d the implications of
interim orders in
administrat
tive law.
6.12 As per
r the applicants’ own show
wing in the pleadings,
it has been
stated on behalf of the a
applicants that it is an
admitted
position that the pos
sts of CDPO and
Superintend
dent have been placed a
t the same pay level
and are tre
eated as equivalent for p
promotional purposes
under the 2
2011 Recruitment Rules.
6.13 The ap
pplicants' grievance essen
ntially arises from the
prolonged
stagnation they experien
nce in comparison to
Welfare Of
fficers, coupled with th
e fact that Welfare
Officers, w
ho do not work within t
the ICDS framework,
are being a
ppointed as CDPOs in sub
bstantial numbers.
6.14 In fac
ct, the applicants have b
been claiming discord
among Sup
pervisor Gr. I / supervisor
Gr. II as under:-
(i) U
Under the 5th CPC recommen
ndations which the Delhi
Govern
nment had accepted and im
mplemented, all of them
ought
to have been promoted to S
Supervisor Gr. I after 5
years o
of service as Supervisor Gr. I
II. Not one of them has
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
62
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
been p
romoted to Supervisor Gr. I
even after completing 8
years o
of regular service in Grade II.
(ii) T
To be recruited as a Superv
visor Gr. II (Stream 1)
require
s, under the Department
of Women and Child
Develop
pment, Supervisor, Grade II
I (Women), Recruitment
Rules, 2
2023, a Bachelor’s degree. To
o be recruited as Welfare
Officer
(Stream 2) requires a Master’
’s degree.
(iii) T
The discrimination begins here
e on the basis of required
qualifica
cation. However, in reality ma
any of the Supervisor Gr.
II have
e a Master’s degree. In fact,
all the applicants in this
O.A. ha
ave a Master’s Degree.
(iv) T
The promotion from Supervisor
r Gr. II to Supervisor Gr.
I is sup
pposed to take place in 5 ye
ears (6 years under the
amende
ed Rules). However, this prom
motion often takes place
after an
n extended period of 15 to 2
20 years. Thus there is a
mismat
tch between the rules and prac
ctice, which renders both
the rule
es as well as the practice arb
bitrary and in violation of
Article
14 of the Constitution. No w
work difference between
Grade I
I and II 7th CPC recommende
ed merger of both grades
Not don
ne even today even after 9 ye
ars.
(v) T
The case set up the applicant
stems from the fact that
there is
s absolutely no difference in w
work between Supervisor
Gr. I a
and Supervisor Gr. II. Hence
e, the two ought to be
merged
d into Supervisor and the Gra
ade Pay made on at par
with W
Welfare Officers. Not doing
this is to perpetuate
arbitrar
riness. The 7th CPC did recom
mmend that the two post
be mer
rged in a single grade/post.
…They have demanded
that th
e two categories of posts in
the Supervisor (Women)
rank, v
viz, i. Supervisor Grade-I ( GP
4200), and ii. Supervisor
Grade-I
II (GP 2800) be placed in one
e pay scale of GP 4200 on
the gro
ound that there is no diffe
rence between the two
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
63
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
grades
from the point of view of job
b responsibility and work
perform
mance as all category of Sup
pervisors shoulder same
job re
esponsibilities quantitatively
and qualitatively. The
bifurcat
tion in the category of Supe
ervisors (Women) in the
Integra
ated Child Development Servic
ces Scheme (ICDS) took
place o
n the recommendations of the
e V CPC.
(vi) It
t has been stated that such
a recommendation was
not rat
tional, as the ICDS Scheme
is a centrally sponsored
scheme
e and the sanction issued for
r ICDS projects follows a
standar
rd staffing pattern which
does not provide for
categor
risation of Supervisors as Grad
de-I and Grade-II.
6.15 The
points of disparity rai
sed in the original
application(
(s) are among the tw
wo sets of personal
working in
the same cadre within
n one homogeneous
group that
cannot relate and equate
e their case with that
of the pos
t of Welfare officer, wh
ich is a distinct and
separate g
group altogether, even
though for higher
promotiona
al posts later on both are t
treated at par.
6.16 In par
ra 42 of the OA, it has bee
en urged on behalf of
the applica
ants that the Supervisor
to CDPO stream is
entirely sep
parate and distinct from t
the Welfare Officer to
Superintend
ded stream. The work is
s entirely different as
set out here
eunder:
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
64
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
Role and
Welfare O
responsibilities of
Officer
Role a
Superv
nd responsibilities of
isors
Rehabilitati
ion, welfare of
Supervis
sory and monitoring role
children i
n need of care,
over 20
0-25 Anganwadi Centres
and Ang
ganwadi Workers
probationer
rs, prison, inmates,
women in d
distress
Their wo
ork domain is
Their w
ork domain is Nutrition,
Institutiona
al and non-
early
childhood care &
institutiona
al child care,
educatio
on, health convergence,
growth m
monitoring
probation,
shelter homes,
prison welf
are
Their targe
et group is Children
Their ta
arget group is Children
in conflict w
with law, in need of
(0-6
yrs), pregnant and
care, in
nmates, rescued
lactating
g women adolescent
women, pro
obationers
girls,
Anganwadi staff,
commun
nity
Monitors
individual case
Monitors
s service delivery (SNP,
progress
institutional
ECCE,
Immunization), AWW
perform
ance, record keeping
conditions,
court orders
compliance
e
Case repo
orting, maintaining
Consolid
dating AWC reports, data
records,
preparing social
entry in
Poshan Tracker, monthly
progress
s reports
investigatio
on & follow-up
reports
Coordinates
s with CWCs, JJ
Coordina
ates with ANM, ASHA,
schools,
PRI, health department
Board NGO
Os, police, judiciary,
prison auth
horities
6.17 The a
rguments put forth on be
ehalf of applicants are
a false equ
uivalence fallacy and logi
cal error. It happens
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
65
Item no.40(C-4)
when some
OA No.782/20
026
eone says that two very di
ifferent things are the
same just
because they share one
small trait. This bad
judgment m
makes unequal things loo
ok equal, which leads
us to sup
erficial speculations. T
The fallout from the
arguments
on behalf of applicants
s can be gauged by
following ill
ustrative situations:-
(i) T
The applicants ignore the fact
t that, in the scheme of
regular
r services, even though they
y were part of the ICSD
scheme
e, an opportunity has been cr
reated by providing them
with a
channel of promotional aven
nues to their advantage.
There c
cannot be any reading betwe
een the lines to draw a
distinct
tion by stating that they ha
ave been given unequal
treatme
ent.
(ii) T
The applicants have been c
claiming discord among
Superv
isor Gr. I / Supervisor Gr. II.
(iii) U
Under the 5th CPC recomme
endations that the Delhi
Govern
ment had accepted and im
plemented, all of them
should
have been promoted to Supe
ervisor Gr. I after 5 years
of serv
vice as Supervisor Gr. II. Not
t one of them has been
promot
ted to Supervisor Gr. I even
after completing 8 years
of regu
lar service in Grade II.
(iv) T
To be recruited as a Superv
visor, Gr. II (Stream 1)
require
s, under the Department
of Women and Child
Develop
pment, Supervisor, Grade II
I (Women), Recruitment
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
66
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
Rules,
2023, a Bachelor’s degree (
there is no challenge to
Recruit
ment Rules, 2023).
(v) T
There are competing claims w
within Supervisor Grade I
and Gr
ade II within the ICSD group
p, the applicants are also
challen
ging the promotional Rules fo
or Supervisor Grade I i.e
Departm
ment of Women and Child D
Development, Supervisor
(Wome
en), Grade-I, Recruitment R
Rules, 2024 notified on
29.01.2
2025 which stipulate that P
Promotion to the post of
Superv
isor Grade I : Supervisor, Gr
ade-II (Women) in Level
-5 in t
the Pay Matrix (Rs. 29200-9
92300/-) with 06 Years
Service
e in the Grade, rendered after
r appointment thereto on
regular
r basis and having successfu
lly completed at least 2
weeks t
training as prescribed by the C
Competent Authority.
(vi) C
Claim of Supervisor Grade
I is a feeder post for
promot
tion to Superintendent /CDP
PO. Supervisor Grade II
cannot
equate their claim seeking t
to lay a challenge to the
RR’s w
when the situation has not a
arisen. The seniority list
ought t
to be common for promotional
posts.
(vii) T
There is no evidence of any h
historical parity between
the two
o sets. The applicants have
been appointed under a
Scheme
e ( The ICDS team compri
ses Anganwadi Workers
(AWWs
s), Anganwadi Helpers,
Supervisors, Child
Develop
pment Project Officers
(CDPOs) and District
Program
mme Officers (DPOs).Anganw
wadi Worker is a lady
selected
d from the local community an
nd is a community-based
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
67
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
frontlin
e honorary worker of the ICD
DS programme. She acts
as a co
mmunity mobiliser).
(viii) T
The argument that Superviso
or Grade I/II employees
require
a longer duration—specifically
y 11 years—to qualify for
promot
tions to Superintendent or C
CDPO compared to the
private
respondents is not a valid b
basis for a discrimination
claim. F
Furthermore, from 2007 or f
for that matter, when the
few of t
the applicants who had been d
directly appointed in the
year 2
017 failed to contest the m
methods of appointment,
eligibilit
ty criteria, or the promotiona
al procedures applied to
themse
elves or the private responde
ents under the relevant
respect
tive Recruitment Rules at any
stage.
n fact, the applicant N
No. 1, Ms. Shivani,
(ix) In
applica
ant No. 5, Ms. Barkha R
Rani, applicant No. 6,
Ms. B
Bharti Kumari Meena, a
pplicant No. 9, Ms.
Kavita
, applicant No. 13, Ms.
Meenakshi Bhardwaj,
and a
pplicant No. 18, Ms. Ree
etu who have now been
appoint
ted and promoted as Supervi
sors I from Supervisors
II durin
ng the pendency of the presen
t original application also
flow fr
rom New RR’s 2024 which
are subject matter of
challen
ge in the feeder cadre for
the promotional post of
CPDO.
(x) T
There is no shortage of prom
motional avenues for the
Superv
isor Grade I or CPDO.
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
68
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
(xi) N
No arbitrariness or malafide ha
as been attributed to the
respond
dents.
(xii) T
The applicant is seeking an a
ltogether separate cadre
of ICSD
D, which falls within the dom
ain of executive or rule-
making
g agencies.
(xiii) P
Postponements in cadre restruc
cturing or the merging of
position
ns within the Supervisor Grad
e(s) do not provide valid
ground
s for claiming CPDO, nor
can they be used to
challen
ge RRs. This remains a matte
r of policy, relying on the
specific
c state government to determ
mine whether individuals
have b
een subjected to disparate tr
reatment regarding their
promot
tional prospects.
6.18 In
R.K. Singh vs U
Union Of India,
88(2000)DL
LT205, the Hon’ble High C
Court of Delhi held as
under:
“ 4. The
e writ of mandamus is a hig
gh prerogative writ of a
most ex
xtensive remedial nature, and
d is, in form, a command
issued
from the High Court of justice
e, directed to any person,
corpora
ation or inferior court, requir
ring him or them to do
some p
particular thing therein specif
fied which appertains to
his or t
their office and is in the natur
re of a public duty. [see.
Halsbu
ury's laws of England (Ha
ilsham Edn) Vol. 9 p.
744.]
5. Befo
ore mandamus can issue, petit
tioner must show that he
has a l
legal right to the performanc
ce of a legal duty by the
party a
gainst whom the mandamus i
is sought, The purpose of
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
69
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
mandam
mus is to supply defects of j
justice. It does in cases
where t
there is a specific right and no
o specific legal remedy to
enforce
e that right. A writ of mandam
mus may be granted only
in a ca
ase where there is a statutor
ry duty imposed upon a
person
and there is a failure to d
discharge that statutory
obligati
ion (see. Lekh Raj Vs. Cus
todian Bombay, ) . The
court i
issues a writ of mandamus
in order to compel an
authori
ity to act according to the ma
andate of the Legislature.
But ma
andamus can only function and
d operate within the law.
Its mai
in function is to see that law i
is observed. As a general
rule ma
andamus will not be granted u
unless a party complained
of has
known what he was required
to do so that he had the
means
of considering whether or not
t he should comply and it
must be
e shown by evidence that ther
re was a distinct demand
of that
t which the party seeking
mandamus deserves to
enforce
e and that such demand was m
met by refusal. (see S.I.
Syndic
cate Ltd. Vs. Union of Ind
dia 1975 SC 460, and
State
of Haryana Vs. Chaman
n Lal ) . For issue of
mandam
mus a demand for justice and
d its refusal is a condition
precede
ent.
6. In A
eltemesh Rein Vs. UOI , , it
t was observed that it is
not ope
en to the Supreme Court to is
ssue a writ in the nature
of man
ndamus to Central Governme
ent to bring a statute or
statuto
ry provisions into force. Sim
milar was the position in
State o
of J&K Vs. A.R. Zakki . It wa
as observed that a writ of
mandam
mus cannot be issued to th
e legislature to enact a
particul
lar legislation. The same i
is true as regards the
executi
ive when it exercises the pow
wer to make rules, which
are in
the nature of subordinate
legislation. In Supreme
Court E
Employees Welfare Associ
iation Vs. UOI , it was
laid dow
wn that there can be no doub
t that no court can direct
legislat
ture to enact a particular law.
Similarly when executive
authori
ity exercises legislative power
r by way of subordinate
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
70
Item no.40(C-4)
OA No.782/20
026
legislat
tion such executive authority c
cannot be asked to enact
a law, w
which he has been empowere
ed to do it with delegated
legislat
tive authority.
7. Thes
se principles were again reitera
rated in the majority view
in R.C.
Poudyal Vs. UOI . As was
s observed in A.K. Roy
Vs. UO
OI and Natinder Chand V
Vs. UT H.P. a writ of
mandam
mus will not compel a person
n to complete legislative
function
n in a particular manner. It
t is to be noted that to
declare
e what the law is or has been
n, is a judicial power. To
declare
e what the law shall be is a l
legislative power. This is
the prin
nciple deducible from decision
of the Federal Court in
Basant
t Vs. Emperor, AIR 1944 F
FC 86, Ogden Vs. Black
Lodge,
, 1804( 2) Lawyers Edn 276
6 and S.S. Bola Vs. B.D.
Sardan
na and Ors . It would be with
hin the exclusive domain
of judic
ciary to expand the law as it
t is and not to speculate
what it
should be as it is the function
n of the Legislature.”
6.19 From
above analysis and discus
ssions, it is the rights
which have
e not been crystallized
yet in favor of the
applicants
even if a state Cabinet
approves an agenda
item or a p
olicy change, that decisio
n remains an internal
administrat
tive instruction until a
formal notification
amending t
the RRs is issued under A
rticle 309. Courts will
routinely d
eny writs of mandamus
that seek to enforce
un-notified
policy drafts or agenda no
otes.
7. CONC
LUSION :
7.1. In vie
w of the above detailed
observations, we are
of the view
w that the relief(s) clai
imed in the present
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'
71
Item no.40(C-4)
original app
OA No.782/20
026
plication in the present f
form are not tenable
and hence,
, the Original Application
n is devoid of merits
and is acco
rdingly dismissed.
7.2. Interim
m order(s) passed by
this Tribunal stands
vacated.
7.3. Pendin
ng Miscellaneous Applicati
ons, if any, shall also
stand dispo
osed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand
Member
/jk/
d S Khati)
(A)
(Manish Garg)
Member (J)
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.10.26 13:02:25+05'30'