Union Of India vs Sanjeev Kumar Yadav And Anr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 30.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 01.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & CM APPL. 52581/2025
UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC
with Mr. Shailendra Kumar
Mishra & Ms. Upanita
Soumyadarshni, Advs..
versus
SANJEEV KUMAR YADAV
AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 13008/2025 & CM APPL. 53225/2025
UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC
with Mr. Shailendra Kumar
Mishra & Ms. Upanita
Soumyadarshni, Advs..
versus
DELHI ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLAND CIVIL
SEVICES OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 1 of 27

J U D G M E N T
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. Through the present writ petitions, the Petitioner/ Union of
India has challenged the correctness of separate orders dated
16.01.2025 (hereafter ‘ impugned orders ’), passed by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 2808/2022 and
3163/2022 respectively, whereby the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli
(Police Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2022 [hereafter ‘ DANIPS
(Amendment) Rules, 2022 ’] and Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli
(Civil Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2022 [hereafter ‘ DANICS
(Amendment) Rules, 2022 ’] were quashed. The learned Tribunal
st
further directed that the relevant rules be amended and 1 January
following the year of examination be considered as the crucial date for
determining ‘ approved service ’.
2. The Petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the quashing of the
st
aforesaid amendments, which fixed 1 July as both the date of
reckoning of ‘ approved service ’ and the crucial date for promotion
under Schedule III of the National Capital Territory of Delhi,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and
Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Police Service) Rules, 2003 (hereafter
‘ DANIPS Rules, 2003 ’) and National Capital Territory of Delhi,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 2 of 27

Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Civil Service) Rules, 2003 (hereafter
‘ DANICS Rules, 2003 ’) respectively.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts germane to
determination of the present cases are as follows:
1
3.1. Earlier, in terms of Rule 2(e) of the DANIPS Rules, 2003 ,
st
‘ approved service ’ for DANIPS commenced from 1 July of the year
following the Civil Services Examination, however, under Note of
2
Schedule III , the crucial date for determining eligibility for promotion
st
was fixed as 1 January of the year in which the vacancy has occurred.
This mismatch caused avoidable delays in promotion of officers.
1
Rule 2(e) of the DANIPS Rules, 2003 (which is analogous to Rule 2(e) of the
DANICS Rules, 2003) reads as under:
“(e) “ Approved Service”, in relation to any grade, means the period or
periods of regular service rendered in that grade, including period
or periods during which a member of the Service could have held a
post on regular basis in that grade but for his being on leave or
st
otherwise not being available to hold such posts, from the 1 day of
July of the year –
(a)following the year in which the examination was held in respect
of an officer appointed directly to that grade;
(b)for which the recruitment was made on regular basis in respect
of an officer appointed to that grade by promotion; ”
2
As per Rule 7(3) of the DANIPS Rules, 2003, all the vacancies in Junior
Administrative Grade I, Junior Administrative Grade II and Selection Grade is to
be filled from the respective lower grade with minimum qualifying service as
specified in Schedule III. Prior to amendment, Note of Schedule III of the
DANIPS Rules, 2003 (which is analogous to note of Schedule III of the DANICS
Rules, 2003) reads as under:
“NOTE: The crucial date for determining the eligibility of an officer for
promotion shall be the 1st January of the year in which the vacancy has
occurred”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 3 of 27

3.2. In the year 2012, the MHA had noted the said discrepancy and
attempted to take corrective action by forwarding a proposal for
amendment in the crucial date for determining the eligibility for
st st
promotion to 1 July in place of 1 January, however, DoPT turned
down the proposal.
3.3. Aggrieved by the discrepancy, in the year 2014, some officers
of DANIPS (including the Respondents in W.P.(C) 12877/2025)
assailed the discrepancy in the conditions of service of DANIPS with
some other similar services/ cadres before the learned Tribunal vide
O.A. No. 3156/2014.
3.4. By order dated 23.07.2018, after noting that the two crucial
dates are operating to the disadvantage of DANIPS officers and the
same is discriminatory, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the said
original application with direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs
(‘ MHA ’) to submit a comprehensive proposal to the Department of
Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Government of India (‘ DoPT ’) as to why it is essential to
st
prescribe 1 January as the sole crucial date for determination of
eligibility for promotion as well as for reckoning ‘ approved service ’.
The DoPT was directed to take a decision on the proposal within two
months and to communicate the decision to MHA by way of a
speaking and reasoned order. The relevant observations of the learned
Tribunal in regard to the two crucial dates being violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 4 of 27

“ 7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly, there is a
discrepancy in reckoning of the approved service in case of
officers of Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ services. The applicants have
made out a clear cut case that in their cases, prescription of
different dates for reckoning the eligibility for promotion and for
counting of the approved service for such promotion is working
st
to their disadvantage. 1 January is the crucial date for
st
determination of the eligibility whereas 1 July is for reckoning the
approved service. As a consequence thereof, the promotions of
DANIPS officers are getting delayed by almost one year. In the
matter of grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG),
st
however, even in their cases, 1 January is being considered for
both the purposes. The members of AFHQCS, which is also a
Group ‘B’ service do not face such disadvantage as in their cases,
st
1 January is taken into account both for determination of
eligibility as well as for counting the approved service. Such a
situation also prevails in all the Group ‘A’ services. One fails to
understand as to why two crucial dates are still being continued
in the case of DANIPS and a few other Group ‘B’ services to
which the members are also recruited through CSES.
xxx
9. It is crystal clear that two crucial dates in the matter of
promotion of DANIPS officers are operating to their
disadvantage and such an anomaly is clearly discriminatory in
nature and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India. The details furnished by the applicants in the OA convince
us beyond any reasonable doubt that the existing 2003 Rules, are
delaying their promotion by one year at every stage except in the
matter of grant of NFSG. This delay also complicates their matter
when they get inducted into IPS. Their seniority positions vis-a-
vis direct recruits get adversely affected. We are not convinced
with the arguments put forth on behalf of R-2 that sometimes
windfall benefits arise to DANIPS officers and a hypothetical case
to that effect has been elaborated in the grounds pleaded on its
behalf. The service jurisprudence would require that the career
progression and service benefits should be based on definite
Service Rules and not on any windfall. ”
(emphasis supplied)
3.5. In compliance of the directions, a proposal was forwarded by
MHA to DoPT proposing amendment in the DANIPS Rules, 2003 to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 5 of 27

st
prescribe the crucial date for reckoning ‘ approved service ’ as 1
st
January instead of 1 July. Several representations were also made by
some DANIPS officers to DoPT in this regard. Purportedly, DoPT
examined MHA’s proposal and advised that the date for reckoning
st
‘ approved service ’ and for determining eligibility be kept as 1 July
instead.
3.6.
Pursuant to the same, by way of Gazette Notification dated
3
08.06.2022 , DANIPS (Amendment) Rules, 2022 were notified
whereby the crucial date for determining eligibility of an officer for
st st
promotion was changed from 1 January to 1 July of the year in
which the vacancy occurred. Pertinently, as there was a similar
3
The notification reads as under:
“ G.S.R. 435(E).— In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the following
rules further to amend the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman
and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and
Nagar Haveli (Police Service) Rules, 2003, namely:-
(1) These rules may be called the National Capital Territory of
Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu
and Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Police Service) (Amendment) Rules,
2022 .
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in
the Official Gazette.
In the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and
Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar
Haveli (Police Service) Rules, 2003, in Schedule-III, NOTE shall be
substituted namely:-
“ Note: The crucial date for determining the eligibility of an
st
officer for promotion shall be the 1 July of the year in which the
vacancy has occurred. ”
NOTE: The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, vide notification number G.S.R. 635(E), dated
the 6th August, 2003 and last amended vide notification
number G.S.R. 100(E) dated the 25th January, 2018. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 6 of 27

discrepancy in crucial dates in the DANICS Rules, 2003, an
analogous amendment [that is, DANICS (Amendment) Rules, 2022]
was notified in the official gazette on 08.06.2022.
3.7. The Respondents [in W.P.(C) 12877/2025] filed O.A. No.
2808/2022 challenging the DANIPS (Amendment) Rules, 2022 before
the learned Tribunal. The subject original application was allowed by
way of impugned order dated 16.01.2025. It was observed that the
st
decision of DoPT to fix 1 July as the crucial date is contradictory to
its own general policy and the same is arbitrary and discriminatory.
The following directions were passed by the learned Tribunal:
“ 6. In view of above discussion, the present OA is allowed with
the following directions:
(i) The Gazette Notification dated 08.06.2022,
notifying the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands,
Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar
Haveli (Police Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2022 is
quashed and set aside.
(ii) Respondents/Competent Authority is directed to
amend Rule 2(e)(a) of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and
st
Nagar Haveli (Police Service) Rules, 2003 and reckon 1
January following the year of examination as the crucial
date for Approved Service.
(iii) The aforementioned exercise shall be carried out by
the respondents within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
(iv) No order as to costs. ”
3.8. The Respondents [in W.P.(C) 13008/2025] had challenged the
analogous DANICS (Amendment) Rules, 2022 in O.A.3163/2022. By
way of the impugned order dated 16.01.2025, after noting that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 7 of 27

facts and circumstances were similar to those in O.A. No. 2808/2022,
the learned Tribunal disposed of the said original application in terms
of the order passed in O.A. No. 2808/2022.
3.9. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has preferred the present
writ petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned
Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with a reasoned
policy decision which was based on inter-ministerial consultations.
5. She submitted that the primary cause of delay in promotion was
the existence of two separate crucial dates for reckoning of ‘ approved
service ’ and for determining the eligibility for promotion, and the
proposed Amendments cure the said issue and can ensure timely
promotion by mitigating delay and without conferring unintended
advantage upon DANIPS and DANICS Officers. She submitted that
the Amendments are not arbitrary and the same aptly harmonise the
crucial date.
6. She submitted that every Central Civil Service is unique in its
character and functions, and the learned Tribunal has erred in drawing
parallels with different services merely on the ground that recruitment
for the said services is being done through same Examination.
7. She submitted that while recruitment to both Group ‘A’ and
Group ‘B’ Central Civil Services are made through the common Civil
Services Examination, however, the career prospects and career
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 8 of 27

progression of Group ‘B’ services is significantly different from that
of Group ‘A’ services. She submitted that the doctrine of parity cannot
be mechanically extended to dissimilar services. She submitted that as
per service Rules of other Group ‘A’ Services like IRS (C&CE),
IRS(IT), Indian Postal Service, Indian Information Service, etc., there
is no concept of ‘ approved service ’ and promotions are given based
on regular service which starts from actual date of joining.
8. She submitted that aligning the date for reckoning ‘ approved
st
service ’ and the date of determining eligibility for promotion to 1 of
January would unduly benefit the DANIPS and DANICS Officers
compared to their counterparts in Central Group ‘A’ Services as their
promotion is based on regular service .
9. She further submitted that the nature of duties of
DANIPS/DANICS and Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service
(‘ AFHQCS ’) posts are entirely different, and the comparison between
these two services is unjust. She further submitted that members of
DANIPS/ DANICS have an advantage over AFHQCS as they have
better career prospects since they are eligible for induction in IPS/IAS.
10. She submitted that it is well-settled that there is no vested right
to promotion on a particular date or by a preferred reckoning method,
and the employees only have a right to be considered for promotion in
accordance with the service rules. She submitted that the subject
Amendments do not deprive the officers of their right to be considered
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 9 of 27

for promotion and the sole purpose is to simply align commencement
of ‘ approved service ’ with promotion cut-off date.
11. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the
learned Tribunal in its order dated 23.07.2018 in O.A. No. 3156/2014
had meticulously analysed the prejudice caused by the dual-date
system and issued unambiguous directions to MHA and DoPT,
despite which, DoPT arbitrarily rejected the proposal to reckon
st
‘ approved service ’ from 1 January without any reason. He submitted
that the notification of the Amendments are evidently a colourable
exercise of power, which is apparent from the fact that DoPT had
itself taken a stand in the earlier original application that the date of
st st
reckoning should be 1 of January instead of 1 of July.
12. He further submitted that reckoning of ‘ approved service ’ from
st
1 of January will not confer any undue advantage on the DANIPS/
DANICS. He submitted that the Petitioner’s argument of promotions
in Group ‘A’ services being based on regular service, which is
calculated from actual date of joining, is not legally tenable.
13. He submitted that both concepts of regular service and
‘ approved service ’ include periods where an officer notionally holds a
post but for being on leave or unavailable, and the only distinction is
that the DANIPS Rules, 2003 and the DANICS Rules, 2003 provide a
clear and codified commencement date for reckoning service. He
relied on IRS (C&CE) Rules, 2016 to buttress his argument that the
source of recruitment, that is the Civil Services Examination, is the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 10 of 27

common starting point across services- whether referred to as Regular
Service in Group 'A' Services, ‘ approved service ’ in DANICS/DANIPS
& AFHQCS, or Allotment Year in All India Services.
14. He submitted that although each service is distinct, the
fundamental criteria for reckoning service for the purposes of
seniority and promotion cannot be arbitrarily different for cadres
whose members are selected through a common examination.
15. He submitted that the concept of ‘ approved service ’ is a well-
established legal fiction employed in certain Group ‘B’ services and it
served the purpose of ensuring notional seniority and service uniformity.
He submitted that the Respondents in either case are not seeking parity
with Group ‘A’ services, but rather with analogous Group ‘B’ services
like AFHQCS. He submitted that the learned Tribunal drew a valid
comparison with AFHQCS, which is an analogous Group ‘B’ service.
He submitted that better career prospects or an opportunity for future
promotion to a different service cannot be a valid ground to justify
discrimination in reckoning of seniority.
st
16. He submitted that fixation of 1 July as the date of reckoning
‘ approved service ’ will have a cascading and irreversible career long
impact on the members of DANIPS/DANICS cadre, particularly at the
crucial stage of their induction into IPS/IAS.
17. He submitted that each officer will suffer a six month reduction
in reckoning service if the same is allowed, especially since eligibility
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 11 of 27

criteria for IAS/IPS induction is pegged to be completion of requisite
st
years of service by 31 December of relevant year.
ANALYSIS
18. The foremost argument agitated by the Petitioner is that by
directing a change of reckoning date of ‘ approved service ’, the
learned Tribunal has erroneously substituted its own policy preference
for that of the competent authority. It is contested that the learned
Tribunal has erred in breaching the bounds of judicial review by not
just quashing the Amendments, but also directing that ‘ approved
st
service ’ be reckoned from 1 of January.
19. Thus, before this Court delves into the merits of this case, it is
apposite to first take note of the scope of judicial review over
administrative or policy decisions.
20. Pertinently, the subject amendments were sought to be made in
exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. Rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution cannot be tinkered with merely because the Court finds
the same to be unreasonable and the same can only be struck down on
grounds upon which a legislative measure can be struck down [Ref.
B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana : (1981) S.C. 561 and R.L. Bansal v.
Union of India : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 318 ]. The rule making power
under the aforesaid provision is subject to constitutional limitations
and it is well-settled that a rule so framed ought not to be interfered
with mechanically unless the same can be faulted for being mala fide ,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 12 of 27

perverse, manifestly arbitrary or unfair. The Court/ Tribunal has to
exercise restraint and circumspection in substituting its own views as
to what is wise or prudent, and the wisdom of the decision itself is not
the subject of judicial review.
21. A bare perusal of the impugned orders indicates that the present
cases are such where the learned Tribunal has quashed the subject
Amendments on finding them to be arbitrary and violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While the cogency of such
interference will be tested in the forthcoming paragraphs, it is
imperative to note that the present case is not one where the learned
Tribunal has routinely interfered with the Amendments at the first
instance. Rather, in the first round of litigation, after making
categorical observations in relation to the discriminatory nature of the
anomaly of different dates for promotion and reckoning ‘ approved
service ’, the learned Tribunal had disposed of the matter with
categorical directions to MHA and DoPT to respectively make an
st
appropriate proposal for harmonising the crucial dates as 1 January
and to decide the aforesaid proposal. In the second round of litigation,
the learned Tribunal was only weighed to interfere as the MHA’s
proposal was found to have been rejected by DoPT without any
reason. While the Tribunal ought not ordinarily rewrite policy,
however, in the face of a policy that is riddled with arbitrariness and
which perpetuates discrimination, it is incumbent on the Tribunal to
intervene in the interests of justice specially when the Parent ministry,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 13 of 27

that is, MHA has specifically proposed the same without contest after
examining the issue.
22. Though it was argued otherwise in the first round of litigation,
there is no dispute over the fact that the discrepancy in the crucial
dates for reckoning of ‘ approved service ’ and determining eligibility
is discriminatory in nature and the same results in delay in promotions
of DANIPS/ DANICS officers, due to which, harmonisation is
warranted. The same was rightly noted by the learned Tribunal in the
first round. Pertinently, the order dated 23.07.2018, which was passed
by the learned Tribunal in the first round of litigation, has not been
challenged by the Union of India. The delay in promotion caused by
the anomaly of two different crucial dates was sought to be cured by
way of the impugned Amendments. Thus, the short question before
st
this Court is only as to whether fixation of 1 of July as the date for
reckoning of ‘ approved service ’ and for determining eligibility for
promotion rectifies the disadvantage and discrimination that was
underlined by the learned Tribunal in order dated 23.07.2018 (in the
first round of litigation).
23. To discern the conundrum at hand, it is imperative to appreciate
the impact of the quashed amendments with help of illustrations
adduced by the Petitioner. Earlier, ‘ approved service ’ of DANIPS and
st
DANICS was determined from 1 July of the relevant year while
st
eligibility for promotion was determined on 1 January of the year in
which the vacancy occurred. As criteria of promotion of
DANICS/DANIPS is 8 years of approved service, this mechanism led
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 14 of 27

to delay in promotions of officers of the aforesaid cadres. For
example , if an officer belonging to the aforesaid cadres joined service
from 01.10.2000, their approved service was counted from 01.07.2000
and they will complete eight years of approved service for promotion
on 30.06.2008, but they will be ineligible for vacancies arising in the
year 2008 as they would not have completed eight years of approved
service on 01.01.2008 (crucial date for determining eligibility for
promotion). Such an officer will only be eligible for vacancy year
2009 and will get their first promotion on 01.01.2009 after 8 years and
6 months of approved service instead of 8 years of approved service.
The impugned amendments sought to modify the date of
st
determining eligibility for promotion to 1 July of the vacancy year to
address the issue of delay in promotions. Continuing the example in
the previous paragraph, in terms of the amendments, the officer’s
approved service will be reckoned in a similar manner from
01.07.2000 and their eligibility will also be assessed on 01.07.2008
(crucial date for determining eligibility for promotion). It is the
Respondents case that other similar services enjoy an extra 6 months
of approved service and they gain eligibility 6 months before
DANIPS/DANICS, which places the said cadres in a disadvantageous
position.
By the impugned orders, after quashing the amendments, the
st
learned Tribunal directed to affix 1 January following the year of
examination as the crucial date for determining ‘ approved service ’. If
the same is sustained, the officer’s approved service as well as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 15 of 27

st
eligibility will be determined from 1 of January, whereby, the officer
will be eligible for vacancies in the year 2008 from 01.01.2008 itself.
The Union has opposed the same by arguing that such a mechanism
would result in the officers of the said cadres being promoted when
they would have had 7 years and 3 months of actual service (counted
from 01.10.2000, which is considered as the actual date of joining in
the example), and this would disturb the relative position between
different services.
24. One of the major reasons that persuaded the learned Tribunal to
quash the amendments was that the DoPT assigned no cogent reasons
st
for not fixing 1 January as the crucial date for reckoning ‘ approved
service ’.
24.1. Perusal of the record as well as the pleadings of the Petitioner
reflects that DoPT had rejected MHA’s 2012 proposal for amendment
st
in the crucial date for determining the eligibility for promotion to 1
st
July as the general policy was of taking 1 January of the vacancy
year for reckoning eligibility for promotion in terms of OM No.
22011/3/98-Estt.(D) dated 17.09.1998. Despite the same,
subsequently, DoPT somersaulted and rejected MHA’s proposal
st
aimed at achieving uniformity by adopting 1 January for DANIPS
officers, which creates a palpable contradiction in the stand of DoPT.
The same coupled with the fact that DoPT has failed to assign any
reason for not agreeing with the MHA’s proposal, which as per DoPT
itself would be in conformity with its general policy, ex facie reeks of
arbitrariness.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 16 of 27

24.2. At the first instance, by order dated 23.07.2018, the learned
Tribunal had explicitly noted that the dual date system was causing
delay in promotions of DANIPS officers in violation of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India, even though, in the matter of grant
st
of Non-Functional Selection grade, 1 January was being considered
for both the purposes. It was further noted that members of AFHQCS,
which is also a Group ‘B’ service, do not face such disadvantage as in
st
their case, 1 January is the crucial date for determination of eligibility
for promotion as well as for counting ‘ approved service ’. It was
further noted that the delay also complicates the matter when such
officers get inducted into IPS as their seniority positions vis-à-vis
direct recruits gets adversely affected. Undisputedly, the aforesaid
findings were never challenged by the Petitioner, and although a
st
proposal for determining 1 January as the crucial date was made
without contest by MHA, the same has been rejected by DoPT
without considering the aforesaid aspects.
24.3. As rightly noted by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order,
no proper reason for rejecting the proposal or of deliberation has been
produced. Although this Court had also afforded an opportunity to the
Petitioner on 22.12.2025 to produce the decision-making process, no
such record has been produced to justify as to why the crucial date of
eligibility and the date of counting of approved service may be both
st
kept as 1 July of the year. In the absence of any reasons for rejection
of the proposal, the learned Tribunal was justified in quashing the
impugned Amendments.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 17 of 27

25. Secondly , the decision of the learned Tribunal was also helmed
on a detailed comparison between other services, wherein it was found
st
that generally 1 of January is fixed as the crucial date for reckoning
the length of service as well as for determining eligibility. The
relevant portion of the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 is as under:
5.3 Comparison with Similar Group 'A' Services:
“
The Indian Civil Accounts Service (Group 'A') Rules, 1997,
as notified vide GSR 694(E) dated 05.11.2006, under Schedule II,
Note I, stipulates that for promotions to the Senior Time Scale
(STS), Junior Administrative Grade (JAG), Selection Grade (Non-
Functional) Junior Administrative Grade (NFSG), and Senior
Administrative Grade (SAG), the length of service is to be
reckoned from 1st January of the year following the year in
4
which the examination was conducted for recruitment .
Similarly, the Recruitment Rules of the Armed Forces
Headquarters Civil Services (AFHOCS), 1968 , notified on
01.05.2001, define the approved service and specify that the 1st
day of January of the year following the year of the examination
for direct recruitment shall serve as the timeline to reckon
approved service .
Further, for the Indian Police Service(IPS) officers
appointed through the same Examination, the approved service is
reckoned from 1st January , and thus, they score advantage over
4
The Indian Civil Accounts Service (Group ‘A’) Rules, 2025 were notified on 30.05.2025
(suppressing the previous Rules which were referred by the learned Tribunal in the impugned
st
order), and there is no such Note therein for reckoning length of service from the 1 of January
following the year of examination.
It is however provided that the crucial date for determining eligibility service for promotion to
st
various grades in the service shall be the 1 January of the vacancy year.
SCHEDULE-II (A) of the said Rules, which deals with appointment of officers to Non-
Functional Selection Grade (level-13), inter alia stipulates the following minimum qualifying
service for placement:
“ Officers of Junior Administrative Grade in level-12 in the pay matrix (Rs.
78800-209200), who have entered 14th year of service on the 1st January of
the year calculated from the year following the year of examination on the
basis of which the members were recruited .”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 18 of 27

the DANIPS officers who lose six months as their approved service
is counted from 1st July.
Further, for Indian Administrative Service(IAS) officers, the
assignment of allotment year is governed by Rule 3 of the Indian
Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules. 1987. The
rule states that the "year of allotment" for a direct recruit officer
is considered to be the year following the year in which the
competitive examination was held. However, as the provision
does not specify an exact date for the commencement of the year,
guidance is drawn from Section 3(66) of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, which defines "year" as a period beginning from the
1st of January. Consequently, for the purpose of calculating
approved service, the cut-off date for each year is interpreted as
1st January .
Further, Note I below Schedule II of the Recruitment Rules
for the Indian Defence Accounts Service, 1958 , prescribes that 1st
January of the year to which the vacancies pertain shall be
considered the crucial date for determining the eligibility of
officers for promotions to various grades.
The members of the aforementioned Services are recruited
through the Civil Services Examination (CSE). Some of these
services are Group 'A' and AFHQS is a Group 'B' Service. From
the above, it is evident that in other similar Group 'A' Services,
where recruitment is through CSE, no separate dates are
prescribed for the consideration of eligibility and approved
service for promotion . Generally, 1st January is fixed as the
crucial date for such purposes. Further, DOPT is consulted while
finalizing Recruitment Rules. ”
25.1. Much emphasis has now been laid by the Petitioner on the
argument that the learned Tribunal has erred in drawing parallels with
different services, without appreciating that the career prospects of
Group ‘B’ services are significantly different. It is argued that as per
service Rules of most Group ‘A’ Services, there is no concept of
‘ approved service ’ and their promotion is based on regular service,
which is the actual service rendered by an officer. The Petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 19 of 27

also contested that the nature of duties of AFHQCS and
DANIPS/DANICS is fairly distinct, and there can be no comparison
st
between the said services. It is further argued that fixation of 1 of
January for calculating ‘ approved service ’ will confer an unintended
advantage of over six months of notional service on
DANICS/DANIPS.
The Petitioners have contested that fixing date of consideration
st
of eligibility and counting approved service as 1 January will disturb
the relative position of the services. It is iterated that the criteria for
promotion in the services is different. The same is exhibited through a
chart (Pg 27 of W.P.(C) 12877/2025), which is as under:
st
Name of Service Criteria of Promotion Eligible date of 1
Sl.
No.
promotion in case
an applicant
appears for CSE-
1999 & selected &
joins his service in
allotted Cadre in
October 2000 (Let
date of joining
01.10.2000 & batch
allotted as 2000).
1. Indian Defence
Accounts Service
(IDAS) [Group
‘A’]
Officers in the Junior Time
Scale with 4 years regular
1st January 2005
service in the grade
2. Indian Civil
Accounts Service
(ICAS) [Group
‘A’]
Officers in the Junior Time
Scale in the pay Band-3 of Rs
15600- 39100 with Grade Pay
of Rs. 5400 with 4 years
regular service in the grade
1st January 2005
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 20 of 27

3. Indian Cost
Accounting
Service [Group
‘A’]
Officers holding the post of
Assistant Director (Cost) with
four years’ regular service
in the grade.
1st January 2005
4. Indian revenue
Service [Group
‘A’]
Officers in Junior time Scale
who have completed four
years regular service in
Group ‘A’ of Indian Revenue
Service calculated from the
1st January of the year of
allotment
1st January 2005
5. Indian
Administrative
Service [Group
‘A’]
An Officer is eligible for
appointment to the Senior
Time Scale on completion of
4 years’ service . This scale
can be allowed from or after
1st January during the
relevant year in which
officers become eligible for
this scale
1st January 2004
6. Indian Police
Service [Group
‘A’]
An Officer is eligible for
appointment to the Senior
Time Scale on completion of
4 years’ service . This scale
can be allowed from or after
1st January during the
relevant year in which
officers become eligible for
this scale
1st January 2004
7. DANICS/DANIPS
[Group ‘B’
Service & their 1st
promotion is from
Group ‘B’ to
Group ‘A’]
Minimum 08 years of
approved services calculated
from 1st July of year of
following the year of exam
(Present Case) i.e. as per
DANIPS (Amendment)
Rules, 2022.
01.07.2008
Minimum 08 years of
approved services calculated
from 1st January of year
01.01.2008
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 21 of 27

following the year of exam
(in case, judgement dated
16.01.2025 of Hon’ble
Tribunal is implemented)
25.2. On the other hand, the Respondents have relied on Schedule III,
Serial No. 5 of the IRS (Customs & Central Excise) Rules, 2016,
which provides that the prescribed Officers who have entered the
st
fourteenth year in the regular service on the 1 January of the year
calculated from the year of Examination are eligible for promotion
to Additional Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Junior
Administrative Grade (Grade V) (Non-Functional Selection Grade) . It
is buttressed that the same demonstrates that the starting point for
calculating service length is not derived from the actual date of joining
but from a standardized date linked to the examination.
25.3. It is important to note that in case of All India Services (IAS,
IPS & IFS), eligibility for first promotion is determined on the basis of
completion of 4 years’ service calculated from the year of allotment.
In other Group ‘A’ services, the concept of ‘ regular service ’ is stated
to be more prevalent instead of ‘ approved service ’ as in the case of
DANIPS, DANICS and AFHQCS. The Union has maintained that the
concept of ‘ approved service ’ is a distinct legal fiction employed for
providing a notional seniority from a fixed date irrespective of the
joining date, and the Respondents have contested that the concept of
approved service as well as regular service both serve the identical
purpose of reckoning service tenure for the purposes of seniority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 22 of 27

25.4. Pertinently, DANICS and DANIPS have the opportunity of
eventual induction into IAS and IPS respectively after certain years of
service [in terms of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,
1955 and IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955
respectively], subject to vacancies. Undisputedly, even as per the table
of the Petitioner, although the explicit concept of ‘ approved service ’
does not exist in case of IAS and IPS, the years of service for
promotion are calculated from the year of allotment, that is, the
st
service is calculated from 1 January, even if the officer actually joins
5
the service in the latter months . As pointed out by the Respondents,
as the eligibility criteria for IPS/IAS induction are pegged to be
completion of requisite years of service ( including approved service )
st 6
by 31 December of the relevant year , DANIPS/ DANICS will be
st
undoubtedly prejudiced if their service is instead counted from 1 of
July as the same shall depress their seniority by 6 months. Further,
st
fixation of 1 of July as the crucial date shall also delay the eligibility
of DANIPS/DANICS for promotions as well as IPS/IAS induction.
5
Example (extracted from paragraph 45 of W.P.(C) 12877/2025): If a candidate,
who appears for CSE-1999 and gets selected and joins on 01.10.2000, then after
completion of 04 years of service, calculated from the year of allotment assigned
to him, starting from the first day of January, he become eligible for first
promotion on 01.01.2004 and being promoted w.e.f. 01.01.2004.
6
Paragraph 6 and Header No.9 of the tabulated criteria in MHA order File No.l-
lS01117/2012-IPS-I, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 27 April 2018 provides as
under:
"Completed year of service (including Approved Service) rendered in the
rank not below that of Dy. SP or equivalent till 31st day of December of
the year for which the SCM was held to prepare the select list on the
basis of which the said officer was appointed to IPS (fractions, if any, are
to be ignored). "
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 23 of 27

st
Thus, it is evident that determining ‘ approved service ’ from 1 July
will not cure the adverse effect on seniority positions vis-à-vis direct
recruits and having different dates would cause apparent anomaly.
Perusal of the relied excerpt of Schedule III of the IRS
(Customs & Central Excise) Rules, 2016 as well as Schedule II (A) of
the Indian Civil Accounts Service (Group ‘A’) Rules, 2025 makes it
clear that at least in some instances in even certain Group ‘A’
services, the service of an officer for the purpose of eligibility for
promotion is not determined from the actual date of their joining, but
from a standardised date linked to the Civil Services Examination.
Even so, it cannot be denied that the eligibility for promotion of
members of most Group ‘A’ services is mostly based on regular
service which is determined from the actual date of joining. However,
the Respondents have explicitly pleaded that they are not seeking
parity with Group ‘A’ services, but rather with analogous Group ‘B’
service, that is, AFHQCS, whose date of reckoning for ‘ approved
st
service ’ is 1 January [Ref. Rule 2(b) of the Armed Forces
Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 2001
]. Although the Petitioner has
sought to impress upon the Court that the aforesaid services are not
comparable due to the difference in the nature of their duties, this
Court is unimpressed by the said argument as mere difference in
duties does not justify necessity of the different date for
commencement of ‘ approved service ’. Further, insofar as the
argument of DANIPS/DANICS having better career prospects due to
their eligibility for induction in IPS/IAS is concerned, there is still no
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 24 of 27

reason to allow a different date for reckoning of ‘ approved service ’,
st
especially when service of IPS/IAS officers is also reckoned from 1
January of their allotment year. If the ‘ approved service ’ is reckoned
st
from 1 of July, the DANICS/DANIPS will suffer a six-month
reduction as compared to AFHQCS. While it appears on first blush
that the quashed amendments solve the issue of delay in promotions of
DANIPS/DANICS, however, the same do not address the issue of the
deficit in their service length as against AFHQCS or the issue of their
delayed eligibility as well as adverse seniority in IAS/IPS vis-à-vis
contemporaries.
st
26. Fixation of crucial date for reckoning ‘ approved service ’ as 1
of July will not eliminate discriminatory treatment and it has been
rightly noted by the learned Tribunal that the Amendments entrench
upon the disparity identified in the first round of litigation and the
same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once such
a benefit of notional service is being extended in promotion to
AFHQCS (another Group ‘B’ service), the argument of the Petitioner
st
that fixation of 1 of January as the date of reckoning of approved
service would confer undue advantage on the DANICS/DANIPS fails.
It is evident that the Amendments had the effect of overriding the
observations made by the Tribunal in the first round without curing
the underlined deficiencies.
27. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted
for interfering with the Amendments in the present circumstances,
especially since the Petitioner authorities have failed to establish as to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 25 of 27

st
why the proposal for assigning 1 January as the crucial date for
reckoning the ‘ approved service ’ as also for determining the eligibility
for promotion was rejected. Once it is apparent that there is
arbitrariness and non-application of mind, the Tribunal cannot sit as a
mute spectator when the dispute is brought before it.
28. However, while this Court is persuaded to uphold the quashing
of the Amendments due to absence of any demonstratable reasoning
coupled with the potential prejudice that will be caused to the
DANIPS/DANICS, it would not be appropriate to sustain the effective
st
direction to amend the relevant rules by fixing 1 January following
the year of examination as the crucial date for determining approved
service. Though the learned Tribunal was motivated to pass the
direction due to failure of Petitioner authorities to curb the issues
underlined in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal should refrain
from passing directions for enactment or amendment of rules in a
particular manner. The mode and manner of curing the infirmities
ought not to be determined by the Tribunal.
29. At the same time, once it was found that the rules in their initial
form were discriminatory and the amendments also cannot continue in
operation due to the manifest arbitrariness, directions were required to
address the resultant administrative vacuum till such time when
appropriate amendments are notified in accordance with law.
30. Thus, MHA as well as DoPT are directed to carry out a
reasoned exercise and stipulate a mechanism which addresses the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 26 of 27

issues underlined by this Court as well as the Tribunal without causing
any consequent prejudice to the prospects of DANIPS/DANICS. This
exercise shall preferably be carried out within a period of two months
from date. Till such amendments are passed in accordance with law,
st
as in the case of AFHQCS, it is directed that 1 January following the
year of examination shall be treated as the crucial date for determining
approved service of DANIPS/ DANICS.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason
to interfere with quashing of the Gazette Notifications whereby the
impugned Amendments were respectively notified, however, the
directions for amendment of the relevant rules are set aside.
32. The present petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
33. A copy of this judgment be placed in both the matters.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
JULY 01, 2026
“SS”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:36:44
W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025 Page 27 of 27