Deepa Verma vs GNCTD

1 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

O.A. No. 3164/2026

Reserved on : 21.10.2026

Pronounced on : 30.10.2026

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Deepa Verma
Aged around 59 years
D/o: Sh. Surendra Kumar
R/o: 234, Arunodaya Appartment,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018

Presently working as:
Director / Director (T)
Group “A”
Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini
Sector 14, Rohini
Delhi-110085 ..…Applicant

(By Advocate : Ms. Esha Mazumdar with Mr. Setu Niket, Mr. Manish Kumar
and Mr. Abhishek Yadav)

Versus

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary
rd
3 Level, ‘A’ Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002

2. Home Department, GNCTD
Through Principal Secretary (Home)
th
5 Level, ‘C’ Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002

3. Services Department, GNCTD
Through Principal Secretary (Services)
th
5 Level, ‘B’ Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002

4. Union Public Service Commission
Through Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069







2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

2 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
5. Principle Director
Forensic Science Laboratory,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Sec-14, Rohini, Delhi-110085

6. Dr. Anil Agarwal
Principle Director
Forensic Science Laboratory,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Sec-14, Rohini, Delhi-110085
(Service through Respondent No. 5) ……Respondents

(By Advocate : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. Mohnish
Sehware for R-1, 2, 5, 6, Mr. H.A. Khan with Mr. Shadab Husain Khan, Mr.
R. V. Sinha with Mr. A. S. Singh for R-4)


ORDER

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
“A. Call for records of the case;
B. Pass an order directing the Respondents to consider and
promote the Applicant to the post of Principal Director-cum-Chief
Forensic Scientist, Forensic Science Laboratory, GNCTD, against
the post created vide order dated 06.06.2024, with effect from
the date of sanction of the said post with all consequential
benefits;
C. Direct the Respondents to convene the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) for consideration for promotion of
the Applicant to the post of Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic
Scientist, Forensic Science Laboratory, GNCTD, or alternatively
consider the Applicant for ad-hoc promotion in accordance with
law pending finalization of the Recruitment Rules;
D. Pass an order directing the Respondents to grant the Applicant
all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation,
arrears of salary, pensionary and retiral benefits, with interest,
arising out of such promotion.
E. Pass an order setting aside the order dated 16.06.2025 as
Director (T) as no post exist in the name of Director (T) either
prior to cadre restructuring or after the cadre restructuring of
posts in laboratory.



2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

3 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
F. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the
Applicant.”

2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel for the applicant
is that the applicant had joined the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Government of NCT of Delhi, on 01.08.1996 as Senior Scientific Officer
(Documents). She was promoted as Assistant Director (Documents) on
01.05.2002 and as Deputy Director on 24.05.2012. Thereafter, she was
promoted as Director and Head of Department (HoD) on an ad-hoc basis
with effect from 01.08.2017 and was granted regular promotion to the post
of Director/HoD on 22.06.2018. She had thus served in the laboratory for
nearly three decades and had discharged scientific, forensic and
administrative responsibilities at different levels. The counsel stated that
the applicant had continuously discharged the functions of HoD since
01.08.2017 and that her role in this regard had been acknowledged in the
U.O. Note dated 10.06.2024 issued by the Director, FSL, and the
communication dated 21.06.2024 issued by the Home Department.
According to her, the said communications recognised her eligibility and the
continuation of the financial and administrative powers of the HoD with the
Director, FSL, pending appointment against the newly created post of
Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist. She further stated that the
competent authority had approved cadre restructuring of the FSL and
sanctioned a post of Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist, Group
A, Gazetted, in Level 14 of the pay matrix, carrying a pay scale of Rs.
1,44,200–2,18,200, vide order dated 06.06.2024. She contended that the

2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

4 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
post had been created to strengthen the scientific and administrative
functioning of the laboratory and to provide a promotional avenue to eligible
Directors belonging to the technical streams. The applicant relied upon the
draft Recruitment Rules dated 26.11.2024, which, according to her,
contemplated filling the post by promotion from amongst Directors of the
relevant technical streams, including Biological/Chemical Science, Cyber
Forensic, Documents, Physical Science and Crime Scene, possessing three
years of regular service in the grade. She claimed that she was the only
officer fulfilling the prescribed eligibility conditions and was, therefore,
entitled to be considered for promotion to the newly created post. The
applicant alleged that, despite her eligibility and experience, the respondents
had appointed an officer belonging to the DANICS cadre, namely the
Additional Secretary (Home), as Ex-Officio HoD and Principal Director, FSL,
with effect from 14.02.2025. She contended that the officer did not
possess any experience in the forensic field and that the appointment had
bypassed her despite her long experience in the laboratory. She further
stated that, on 16.06.2025, the said arrangement had been replaced by the
appointment of Dr. Anil Agarwal, IAS, as Principal Director, FSL, and that
she had simultaneously been posted as Director (Training), FSL, under the
newly appointed Principal Director. The applicant challenged the aforesaid
posting as Director (Training) on the ground that no sanctioned post under
that designation existed in the FSL either before or after cadre restructuring.
She further contended that the appointment of officers from the
administrative cadre to head a specialised forensic institution, without the
requisite forensic background, was contrary to the object of cadre

2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

5 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
restructuring and could adversely affect the scientific functioning of the
laboratory and the administration of criminal justice. She accordingly,
questioned both the denial of promotion to her and the administrative
arrangement made by the respondents. The counsel stated that the
applicant had repeatedly represented to the competent authorities seeking
regular promotion through a DPC and, in the alternative, ad-hoc promotion
pending finalisation of the Recruitment Rules. Her representations included
those dated 07.05.2025, 09.10.2025, 15.12.2025, 12.03.2026, 18.05.2026
and 31.07.2026. She also relied upon the Department of Personnel and
Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 06.09.2007, contending that it
provided for consideration of a one-time method of recruitment in special
circumstances where a newly created post was required to be filled urgently
and the Recruitment Rules were yet to be finalised. She alleged that the
respondents had neither granted her promotion nor appropriately dealt with
her representations, despite her impending retirement on 31.10.2026.
On the aforesaid basis, the counsel for the applicant contended that the
continued inaction of the respondents violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. She asserted that the creation of the post, the
departmental communications acknowledging her eligibility and the draft
Recruitment Rules had given rise to a legitimate expectation that her
candidature would be considered. She further contended that the absence
of final Recruitment Rules could not be used to deny her consideration for
promotion while an officer outside the technical cadre was permitted to
discharge the functions of Principal Director, FSL. She therefore,
approached this Tribunal to ventilate her grievance.

2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

6 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
3. The counsel for the applicant argued assiduously on the following
grounds :-
“1. The action of the Respondents is in violation of Articles 14, 16
& 21 of the Constitution of India. The continuing inaction and
failure of the Respondents in deciding the Applicant's
representations for promotion is arbitrary, unreasonable and
discriminatory.
2. The Respondents' repeated failure to constitute a DPC or grant
ad-hoc promotion to the Applicant, despite her undisputed
eligibility and the department's own admission (vide U.O. Note
dated 10.06.2024) that she is "eligible for the same," is
unreasonable and arbitrary.
3. Respondents have themselves recognized, through the letter
dated 21.06.2024, that pending regular appointment to the
Principal Director's post, financial and administrative powers of
HoD continued to vest in the Director, FSL (the Applicant) and as
HoD from 06.06.2024 to 14.02.2025 which was the duty /
responsibility of Principal Director as per cadre restructuring order
dated 06.06.2024. The same was later on ignored by the
respondents.
4. The impugned appointment of DANICS / IAS officers as
Principal Director, FSL, are ex facie contrary to the eligibility
criteria contained in the draft Recruitment Rules dated
26.11.2024, which mandate that the post be filled by promotion
of a Director, FSL, with 3 years' regular service, a criterion
admittedly satisfied only by the Applicant.
5. Appointment of officer of non forensic background to head a
highly specialized forensic institution like FSL is arbitrary, contrary
to the object and purpose of the cadre restructuring itself i.e.
strengthening forensic capabilities, and violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, being manifestly unreasonable and lacking
any rational nexus with the post's functional requirements.
6. The post of Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist is a
highly specialized scientific post requiring domain expertise.
Appointment of officers having no forensic background adversely
affects administration of justice, forensic investigations and public
interest, and also defeating the very purpose behind creation of
the post for career progression.
7. The repeated appointment of officers outside the technical
cadre virtually abolishes the promotional avenue available to
Directors of FSL, which is contrary to the service jurisprudence
governing promotional posts and violates Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution.
8. DoPT OM dated 06.09.2007 specifically permits ad-hoc/one-
time recruitment measures where RRs for a newly created post


2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

7 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
are still pending finalization, especially to avoid administrative
vacuum, a mechanism the Respondents have selectively applied
to appoint ineligible DANICS / IAS officers but withheld from the
sole eligible candidate.
9. The Respondents cannot deny the Applicant promotion merely
because the Recruitment Rules have not been finalized, at the
same time appointing entirely ineligible and outside the cadre
officer to a post which requires extensive scientific experience.
Administrative delay in framing Recruitment Rules cannot
prejudice the rights of an otherwise eligible employee, particularly
where the post has already been created and the feeder cadre as
well as eligibility criteria stand identified by the Respondents
themselves.
10. The inaction of the Respondents effectively defeats the
legitimate expectation created by the department's own
recommendation dated 10.06.2024 recognizing the Applicant as
the rightful claimant for ad-hoc promotion.
11. The Applicant is due to retire on 31.10.2026. Unless
immediate directions are issued, the entire cause of action would
become infructuous and the Applicant would suffer irreversible
loss of promotional status, pay fixation, pension, gratuity, leave
encashment and all consequential retiral benefits, which cannot
be adequately compensated subsequently."

4. During arguments, the counsel for the applicant handed across the
Bar a copy of order of her promotion dated 19.07.2017. The same is taken
on record.
5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 had
filed their reply, vehemently opposing the OA as well as arguments of the
counsel for the applicant and argued vociferously stating that Dr. Anil
Agarwal, IAS, had been appointed as Principal Director, FSL, with effect from
16.06.2025 vide order No. 222 dated 16.06.2025 issued by the Services
Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, with the approval of the
competent authority. They further stated that the post of Principal Director,
FSL, had been newly created vide order dated 06.06.2024 and that the

2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

8 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
requisite Recruitment Rules were yet to be framed and notified and were still
under process. The respondents denied that the creation of the post had
automatically conferred upon the applicant a right to promotion. They
submitted that a draft Recruitment Rule, unless duly approved and notified
in accordance with law, could not confer a vested or enforceable right to
appointment or promotion. According to them, eligibility for promotion had
to be determined with reference to the Recruitment Rules in force on the
relevant date, the sanctioned strength, the availability of vacancies, the
prescribed method of recruitment and the procedure to be followed by the
competent authority or the DPC. They therefore, disputed the applicant’s
assertion that she was the only eligible officer for appointment to the post.
The respondents further submitted that the order dated 16.06.2025
assigning the applicant to the post/designation of Director (Training) was an
administrative decision taken by the competent authority in the interest of
the administration of the laboratory. They denied that the said order was
arbitrary or illegal and contended that the applicant had failed to establish
any statutory violation or any vested right to continue as Director, FSL, or to
hold a particular posting. They also denied that the appointment of an
officer belonging to the DANICS/IAS cadre to discharge the administrative
responsibilities of the Principal Director was prohibited by any applicable
statutory provision. According to them, the applicant had not established
that the administrative head of the laboratory was required, in all
circumstances, to belong to the technical forensic cadre. They also referred
to the operational and supervisory difficulties faced by the FSL during the
relevant period. They stated that the laboratory had a backlog of

2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

9 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
approximately 28,000 cases under various divisions in December 2024,
resulting in considerable delays in forensic reporting. According to the
respondents, the pendency had subsequently reduced to approximately
6,000 cases by August 2026. They attributed this improvement to the
administrative and supervisory arrangements introduced following the
appointment of officers from the DANICS/IAS cadre as Principal Director,
FSL. They relied upon the monthly case reports for December 2024 and
August 2026 in support of their submissions. The respondents further
stated that a show-cause notice dated 10.01.2025 had been issued to the
applicant by the Directorate of Vigilance, Government of NCT of Delhi, in
relation to alleged non-compliance, delay and non-cooperation in the
finalisation of disciplinary proceedings concerning cases pertaining to the
FSL. They stated that the matter had not been settled till the filing of the
reply. They also referred to another show-cause notice dated 17.04.2025
issued by the Additional Secretary (Home) in connection with the pendency
and other related issues in the laboratory. These matters had been cited by
the respondents as part of the administrative circumstances prevailing at the
relevant time. In their para-wise reply, the respondents admitted the
applicant’s service particulars only to the extent borne out by the official
records. They denied that her long service, tenure as HoD or discharge of
administrative and scientific responsibilities created a vested right to
promotion to the post of Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist.
They submitted that the U.O. Note dated 10.06.2024 and the
communication dated 21.06.2024 had to be read in their proper
administrative context and could not be treated as an order of promotion or

2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

10 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
as a statutory determination of her entitlement. They also denied that the
posting of an administrative officer amounted to a violation of the draft
Recruitment Rules or established any illegality in the absence of final and
operative Recruitment Rules. They further denied that the applicant was
automatically entitled to ad-hoc promotion under the DoPT Office
Memorandum dated 06.09.2007. They submitted that the applicability of
the said memorandum depended upon the facts and circumstances of the
case, the status of the Recruitment Rules, the nature of the post, the
applicable method of recruitment and the approval of the competent
authority. They contended that the processing of a proposal for
appointment to a newly created post necessarily involved examination of the
Recruitment Rules, cadre position, eligibility, recruitment methodology and
the approvals required under the applicable procedure. They therefore,
denied that the pendency of the applicant’s representations or the delay in
finalisation of the Recruitment Rules established a legal right to promotion.
The respondents denied the allegations of discrimination and violation of
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. They submitted that the
applicant’s claim was required to be considered in accordance with the
applicable Recruitment Rules and administrative procedure and that Article
16 did not confer an absolute right to promotion. They also denied that any
legitimate expectation of promotion could arise merely from an internal
departmental communication or from the consideration of an employee’s
eligibility in a particular administrative context. On these grounds, the
respondents prayed for dismissal of the O.A.


2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

11 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
6. To strengthen his case, the counsel for the respondents handed
across the Bar a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Sreepati Ranjan Dash in Civil Appeal No.
13121/2025 and batch dated 18.05.2026 wherein following had been
observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court :-
"ii. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must
necessarily be filled on the basis of the law/rules that existed on
the date when they arose - The Government is fully entitled to
take a conscious policy decision not to fill up existing vacancies
prior to the amendment or framing of new rules, especially when
a restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient
administration"

7. In her rejoinder the counsel for the applicant submitted that the
counter-reply filed by the respondents was largely wrong and denied the
contentions made therein. She contended that the post in question was not
"newly created," noting that it was created more than two years and three
months prior on 06.06.2024, and that the Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the
post were uploaded on the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) website on
26.11.2024, to invite stakeholder comments. She stated that the delay in
finalization of the RRs could not prejudice her, especially given her
superannuation date of 31.10.2026. The applicant explained that case
pendency was due to an incoming high volume of cases coupled with a
relatively lower number of available scientific manpower in the laboratory.
She asserted that this situation was diligently brought to the knowledge of
higher authorities, leading to a meeting convened on 23.11.2022, under the
chairmanship of the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor where cadre restructuring
directions were issued. She further detailed that expansion and


2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

12 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
construction projects for various divisions were taken up in 2019, completed
in 2023, and became functional in 2024. Following cadre restructuring, huge
numbers of scientific, administrative, and IT posts were created through
orders dated 06.06.2024 and 22.11.2024, raising the overall sanctioned
strength from 707 to 1060. To tackle pendency as a time-gap arrangement,
proposals to fill posts on a contract basis were submitted in 2024 and 2025,
resulting in the appointment of more than 300 scientific personnel, alongside
the attachment of approximately 90 M.Sc. interns and 150 Home Guards in
2025, bringing the total additional staff to around 550. The applicant
disputed the claim that the post of Principal Director was completely
administrative and supervisory, emphasizing that it required prolonged
forensic domain experience—specifically in case examination work—as
reflected in the requirement of three years of experience at the Director FSL
level. She pointed out that the post of "Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic
Scientist," created on June 6, 2024, was notified as a "Scientific Expert" on
July 1, 2024, to fulfill the mandatory requirements of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. She firmly denied that she had not
participated in case reporting during her tenure as Head of Department
(HOD) from August 2017 to February 13, 2025. Instead, she maintained
that she regularly and technically reviewed cases reported by division heads,
technical managers, and reporting officers in compliance with NABL quality
policies, and that between February 13, 2025, and September 30, 2026, she
personally reviewed approximately 500 cases as part of mandatory forensic
report completions. Regarding the show-cause notices issued against her,
the applicant stated that she submitted a due reply on 06.02.2025 to the

2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

13 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
notice dated 10.01.2025 detailing relevant correspondence from the Home
Department and FSL while requesting its withdrawal. She expressed
surprise regarding the subsequent show-cause notice dated 17.04.2025
issued by the Additional Secretary (Home) for allegedly failing to submit
concrete proposals and monthly action plans to reduce pendency, noting
that the Additional Secretary (Home) had actually been working as the
Principal Director/HOD responsible for submitting such proposals since
14.02.2025 while she worked under him. She submitted a detailed reply on
21.04.2025 explaining her previous proposals and exhaustive administrative
and scientific efforts and requested the notice's withdrawal, though no
further communication was received. The applicant reiterated that the
right to be considered for promotion was a fundamental right, which the
respondents were defeating through humongous delays. Relying upon
DoPT Office Memorandums dated 06.07.2007, 16.04.2015 and 30.09.2022
she argued that she fully fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion under
the Recruitment Rules of the Principal Director, making her the most eligible
candidate. She further contended that posting her to the non-existent post
of "Director (Training)"—which existed neither prior to nor after the cadre
restructuring order of 06.06.2024—amounted to an admission by the
respondents that she had been posted to a non-existent post, thereby
breaching the RRs and defeating her vested rights. Finally, she maintained
that appointing a DANICS or IAS officer to the position was operationally
detrimental to the administration of criminal justice, and concluded by
praying that her O.A be allowed in the interests of justice.


2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

14 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
8. The counsel for the respondents also argued from their additional
affidavit dated 19.10.2026 which was handed across the Bar that the
petitioner has relied upon the draft RRs and has not attached the status
report of finalisation and notification of RRs for the post of Principal Director.
The counsel highlighted paras 3 to 6 of the additional affidavit which reads
as under :-
“3. That the Petitioner has relied upon the Draft RRs and has not
attached the further the Status Report of finalization and
notification of RRs for the post of Principal Director. It is
submitted that vide clarification/ justification letter dated
30.04.2026, the name of the post as per UPSC comments has
been rectified as Principal Director, in place of Principal Director-
cum Chief Forensic Scientist, Level-14 (Rs. 1,44,200 – Rs.
2,18,200) in the pay matrix and consultation with the USPC has
been submitted. Relevant clarification dated 30.04.2026 in
respect of nomenclature of the post in draft RRs submitted by
FSL, subsequently approval of UPSC for the name of the post as
“Principle Director” are collectively annexed as Annexure R-1.
4. It is submitted that Minutes of the Meeting dated 23.11.2022
will only demonstrate that various issues relating to functioning,
infrastructure, manpower and cadre restructuring of FSL were
considered by the Competent Authority, however, the final is one
sent by the Home Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi to the UPSC. It
may also be pointed out that appointment of Respondent No. 5
vide order dated 16.06.2025 by the Govt. of NCT Delhi is to meet
the exigencies of service in largest public interest as large number
of cases for forensic examination and reports were pending for a
long time and to streamline and monitor the working of the
department, the appointment of Respondent No. 5 was made by
the Government, who has been able to reduce the pendency from
27,000 pending cases to less than 6,000 cases within a period of
one year. This was also so required on account of introduction of
3 new criminal laws mandating the timely submissions of the FSL
Reports to the Courts, which will result into speedy justice to the
victims.
5. It may also be pointed out that MTS recruited in the
department are not competent to conduct any case examination
reporting as the same is to be done by the qualified scientist who
are appointed as Reporting Officers (JSA, JSO, SSA, SSO, AD and
DD). Reviewing of only 500 cases as against 27,000 long pending
cases for almost 15 years or even more.
6. It may also be pointed out that the post has been designated
by the Competent Authority as Principal Director only and not as
Principal Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist as claimed by the
Petitioner and the Recruitment Rules have been sent to UPSC for


2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

15 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
confirmation. This is also keeping in mind the fact that the role of
Principal Director overall Administrative Supervision and
Coordination with Forensic/Scientific and other Government
Agencies, especially the Police Department. Merely because a
post has been created does not give any legal right to an
individual for promotion to the post without finalization and
notification of the Recruitment Rules.

9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the Judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Sreepati Ranjan
Dash (2026) supra. We are of the considered opinion that the ratio given
in this judgment "There is no rule of universal application that vacancies
must necessarily be filled on the basis of the law/rules that existed on the
date when they arose - The Government is fully entitled to take a conscious
policy decision not to fill up existing vacancies prior to the amendment or
framing of new rules, especially when a restructuring of the cadre is
intended for efficient administration" fairly and squarely covers the facts and
circumstances of this OA on all our corners. We have observed that the
applicant was promoted as Director and Head of Department (HoD) on ad
hoc basis with effect from 01.08.2017 and was granted regular promotion to
the post of Director/HOD on 22.06.2018. We have further observed that
despite being at the 'helm of the affairs' and being the leader of this
organisation since August, 2017 till February, 2025 (about 7½ years), she
was unable to motivate, coordinate and effectively supervise the Scientific
and Forensic Cadre (despite being a Forensic and Scientific Officer herself)
and ensure expeditious disposal of forensic cases. Cases kept on piling and
led to a huge backlog of 28,000 cases. In the light of this inefficiency and

2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

16 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
ineptitude, the respondents in their collective wisdom first posted a DANICS
service officer and later on an IAS officer as Head of Department (HoD) who
through his leadership traits, coordination and synergy skills was able to
show excellent results and bring down the backlog of cases from 25,830 in
June, 2025 to 5,402 in September, 2026. (NDPS cases - 300 in January,
2025 to 141 in September, 2026; POCSO cases - 1,301 in January, 2025 to
92 in September, 2026). This change of leadership was therefore positive
for the efficiency and productivity of the organisation — Forensic Science
Laboratory, Rohini.
10. We have further observed that one needs more of 'general
administrative and managerial skills' of bringing in synergy and coordination
amongst the various departments of an organization; giving effective
leadership and motivating teams to deliver results at the highest levels
rather than technical skills (scientific & forensic) at the higher echelons of an
organization. To give an analogy, the orchestra conductor is not
necessarily a 'specialist' who specialises in playing the
guitar/violin/accordion, but a 'generalist' who coordinates all the musicians'
notes to deliver a melodious symphony. Moreover, it is the Executive's
decision as to how, where and when to post officers to 'stem the rot' and
usher in efficiency and productivity in a Govt. organisation. Moreover, the
respondents are amending the RRs and replacing the highest post of
Principal Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist (Level 14) (Rs 1,44,200 - Rs
2,18,200) in the pay matrix by the designation — Principal Director and
submitted this proposal to UPSC which is seized of the matter. This is

2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

17 O.A No. 3164/2026
Item 18 (C-3)
purely an administrative and policy decision which falls in the domain of the
Executive and under the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, does not call for a
judicial review as per the ratio given in honourable Apex Court Judgments:
(i) TATA CELLULAR vs. UOI (1994) 6 SCC 651 and
(ii) P.U. Joshi vs. Advocate General, Accountant General,
Ahmedabad (2003) 2 SCC 632
Also it is a settled principle in Administrative law and Service Jurisprudence
as per the ratio given in the landmark Supreme Court Judgement in Civil
Appeal No. 5835 of 2025 — P. Sakthi vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & others
dated 02.05.2025 that while consideration for promotion is a right; per se
promotion in case of a Govt. servant is not an inalienable and indefeasible
right.
11. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the
balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the Respondents.
The instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar manner.
However, there will be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)

/Mbt/
2026.10.30 17:43:12
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'