Dr Atul Pandey & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 01.06.2026

+ W.P.(C) 6651/2026
DR ATUL PANDEY & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Abhaya Kumar Behera, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms.
Aditi Gupta and Ms. Lavanya
Bhardwaj, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Dr.
Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, CGSC,
Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Adv and Mr. C P
Vinod Kumar, Under Secretary.
Mrs Avnish Ahlawat, SC GNCTD
Services, Mr Nitesh Kumar Singh and
Mr Amit Yadav, Advs.
Mr Ravinder Agarwal, Adv for
UPSC.
+ W.P.(C) 6658/2026
DELHI ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS CIVIL
SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi & Mr. Pragyan
Pradip Sharma, Sr. Advs. with Ms.
Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms. Aditi Gupta,
Mr. Rachit Sharma and Mr.
Akashdeep, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. And Mr.
Kirtiman Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Natasha Dalmia, Ms. Shambhavi
Singh, Ms. Anisha Jain and Ms.
Prerna Cheema, Ms. Esha Mazumdar,
Mr. Abhishek Yadav and Mr. Manish


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 1 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

Kumar Advs.
Ms. Pratima N Lakra CGSC, Ms.
Indu Uttara, Adv. and Mr. G. P.
Vinod Kumar, Under Secretary,
MHA.
Mrs Avnish Ahlawat, SC GNCTD
Services, Mr Nitesh Kumar Singh and
Mr Amit Yadav, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

(ORAL)
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM APPL. 32760/2026 in W.P.(C) 6651/2026
CM APPL. 32782/2026 in W.P.(C) 6658/2026
1. By this order, we shall decide the applications filed by the petitioners

for stay. The applications with identical prayers have been filed by the
petitioners seeking stay of “Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 (GNCTDSS
Rules, 2024) or stay DPC for the post of Senior Scale (GNCTDSS) in DASS
cadre” , which are reproduced as under: -
“(a) allow the present application;
(b) stay the operation of the impugned Government of
National Capital Territory of Delhi Subordinate Service
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 (GNCTDSS Rules, 2024)
or stay DPC for the post of Senior Scale (GNCTDSS) in
DASS cadre during the pendency of the present writ
petition;
(c) any other order or direction that this Hon'ble court
deems just and proper, keeping in consideration the facts
and circumstances of the instant case and in the larger
interest of justice and equity.”
2. The challenge in the above writ petitions is to the order dated



W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 2 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

16.02.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in two
OAs’ being O.A.No.4107/2023 and O.A. No.474/2025 filed by the
petitioners herein.
3. The challenge in the OAs’ before the Tribunal, as noted was
primarily to the action of the respondents to abolish nearly 217 posts meant
for the Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshwadeep, Daman & Diu,
and Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Civil Services (DANICS) and Indian
Administrative Services (IAS) cadre and to make them available to the
Grade I officers of the Delhi Administrative Subordinate Secretariat Service
(DASS) (now GNCTDSS).
4. The grounds of challenge are primarily, the action is in violation of
statutory Recruitment Rules, procedure prescribed for abolition/creation of
group A posts and the DoPT guidelines.
5. The petitioners herein are officers in DANICS, which was constituted

in the year 1962. They are directly recruited through Civil Services
Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
during the years 2020-22. The recruitment to DANICS is through direct
recruitment and promotion (which is from the DASS Grade-1 Cadre with
three-year regular service) in the ratio of 50:50.
6. It is the case of the petitioners and contended by Mr. Parag P. Tripathi
and Mr. Abhaya Kumar Behera, learned Senior Counsels’ appearing in both
petitions that the cadre strength of DANICS was determined in 2009.
However, no cadre review was conducted for the past 17 years. In this
regard, they have given reference to the orders passed by the Tribunal and
this Court from time to time in the litigation initiated by the DANICS for


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 3 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

cadre review.
7. It is noted from the record that, in the year 2015, Ministry of Home
Affairs (MHA) approved the proposal of the GNCTD for upgradation of pay
scale of Grade-1 DASS Cadre from level-7 to level-8. At this stage, it may
be stated that the case of the respondents/officers belonging to DASS cadre
is that the petitioners had not objected to the upgradation of their pay scale
from level-7 to level-8.
8. According to Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Behera, Grade-1 DASS Cadre
Officers though have been given higher pay level, but the same had no
bearing on seniority or for that matter promotion to DANICS Cadre. In other
words, the pay upgradation as granted to Grade-1 DASS officers, was only
personal to them.
9. Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Behera submitted that the respondents/ Grade-1

DASS cadre officers started demanding back dated seniority on the
promotion into the entry grade of the DANICS which plea was rejected.
Subsequently, a demand was made by the respondents/ Grade-1 DASS
officers for creation of Group A post in the DASS cadre which proposal was
accepted by the Delhi Cabinet in the year 2015. A reference is also made
about the constitution of two-member committee headed by Dr. M.M. Kutty,
IAS with the approval of the Hon’ble Home Minister, Government of India
to examine the service-related issues of IAS, DANICS and DASS and to
recommend measures to remove stagnation in DANICS and DASS cadre in
a holistic manner.
10. The Committee recommended measures for removing stagnation in
DASS cadre but rejected the demand of creation/encadrement of Group A


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 4 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

posts in DASS cadre as it involves creation of a parallel State Civil Service
for DASS for Delhi. It appears, later as submitted by Mr. Tripathi and
Mr.Behera, the GNCTD, without examining the petitioners’ representations,
sent a proposal to the MHA for abolition the DANICS equivalent posts for
creation of Group ‘A’ posts in DASS cadre. According to them, MHA
without considering its effect has conveyed no objection for abolition of
DANICS equivalent posts in Delhi for creation of Group-A posts in DASS
cadre. At this stage, it is necessary to state, as stated above, the DANICS
officers were also demanding cadre review in their cadre, which prayer was
allowed by the Tribunal/this Court.
11. The Kutty Committee had recommended the cadre review of the
DANICS by encadring 442 ex-cadre posts equivalent to DANICS into
DANICS as the same would add additional 221 posts in the promotional
quota, resulting in increase in the promotional quota of Entry Grade-1
DANICS officers to 359 posts for 789 directly recruited Grade-II DASS
officers, which shall answer the stagnation of DASS cadre. It is stated that,
a decision was taken to hold DPC to fill up 50% promotion quota from
amongst DASS Cadre Grade I. According to them, there was no reason for
the respondents to issue an order on 10.11.2023, for restructuring of the
DASS Cadre, whereby it was decided that 217 posts be encadred at Pay
Level-11 to be filled through promotion of officers in Grade-I DASS.
Pursuant thereto, a notification dated 24.12.2024 was issued amending the
DASS/GNCTDSS Rules, whereby Senior Scale has been prescribed over
and above Grade-I in the rules, in the Pay Level-11 with 217 posts. It is this
notification along with the letters and decision dated 07.08.2023 and


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 5 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

24.08.2023, which became the subject matter of the OA.
12. According to them, the Tribunal had framed six issues for its
consideration. One of the issues was whether the Hon’ble Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi is competent in law to frame recruitment rules for DASS
cadre and create Group-A posts therein. They stated that the Tribunal has
erred in deciding the said issue to hold that the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor
is competent to frame the rules in the following manner:-
“13.8 Independently of the statutory framework, the
competence of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor is traceable to
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
The said provision empowers the President, or any
person authorized by him, to frame rules regulating
recruitment and conditions of service.
13.9 It is a settled proposition of law, as consistently
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in decisions such
as B.S. Yadav v State of Haryana (supra), V.K. Sood v.
Secretary, Civil Aviation (supra), and S.S. Bola v. B.D.
Sardana (supra), that the power under the proviso to
Article 309 is legislative in character; Such rules
continue to operate with full force until displaced by an
enactment of the competent legislature; and the
Constitutional scheme does not permit a vacuum in
service jurisprudence. In the present case, it is an
admitted position that no legislation has been enacted
by the GNCTD legislature governing the service
conditions or cadre structure of the DASS cadre.
Consequently, the rules framed by the delegatee of the
Hon'ble President validly occupy the field. The
principle that rules framed under Article 309 operate
with full force in the absence of legislation is further
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.R. Yadav
v. R.K. Singh, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 110. The
relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:-
"20. The 1991 Rules were framed by the Governor


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 6 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

of Uttar Pradesh in. exercise of his power
conferred under the proviso appended to Article
309 of the Constitution of India. The proviso
appended to Article 300 of the Constitution reads
thus:
Provided that it shall be competent for the
President or such person as he may direct in
the case of services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union, and for the
Governor of a State or such person as he
may direct in the case of services and posts
in connection with the affairs of the State, to
make rules regulating the recruitment, and
the conditions of service of persons
appointed, to such services and posts until
provision in that behalf is made by or under
an Act of the appropriate legislature under
this Article, and any rules so made shall
have effect subject to the provisions of any
such Act."
21. On a plain reading of the said provision, there
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that rules framed
thereunder would apply so long as a statute or
statutory rules or any other subordinate
legislation governing the conditions of service are
not enacted or made or not otherwise operating in
the field. In other words, rules made under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are for a
transitory period and the same would give way to
the special rules once framed. However, if a
statute or rules made thereunder was/were
already operating in the field, the general rules
made under the proviso to Article 309 would not
apply to the services created thereunder.
22. The submission of Mr Dwivedi to the
aforementioned extent appears to be correct.
13.10 In the present case, no enactment of the
Legislative Assembly of Delhi occupying the field of


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 7 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

recruitment or service conditions of the DASS cadre
has been brought to notice. In the absence of any such
law, the rules framed by the delegatee of the President,
i.e., the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, must prevail and hold
the field.
13.11 The respondents have also demonstrated a
consistent chain of delegation of powers in favour of
the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, commencing from
notifications dated 13.07.1959 and 24.09.1968,
followed by the circular dated 01.01.190 specifically
delegating powers for creation of posts, and its
reiteration post the 2023 Amendment through Office
Memorandum dated 05.01.2024.
13.12 It is not in dispute that, in exercise of such
delegated powers, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor has, from
time to time, created and restructured posts across
various services under GNCTD, including Group 'A'
posts in multiple departments. Such actions have
remained unchallenged and have attained finality. The
impugned notification is, therefore, in line with an
established administrative practice and cannot be
singled out for adverse scrutiny.
13.13 The reliance placed by the applicants on the
Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2022 is misplaced.
The said O.M. pertains specifically to Organized
Central Group 'A' Services and lays down a procedure
for their cadre review. The DASS cadre, admittedly, is
a Central Civil Service Group 'B' and does not fall
within the ambit of the said O.M.
13.14 The creation of certain Group 'A' posts within an
existing Group 'B' service does not ipso facto convert it
into a Group 'A' service, nor does it attract the
procedural requirements applicable to organized
Group 'A' cadres. The contention of procedural
violation is, therefore, devoid of merit.
13.15 It is trite law that matters relating to creation,
abolition, restructuring of posts, and prescription of
service conditions fall squarely within the realm of


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 8 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

executive policy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.U.
Joshi v. Accountant General Ahmedabad (supra) has
categorically held that such matters lie within the
exclusive domain of the State and are not amenable to
judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary,
mala fide, or violative of constitutional or statutory
provisions. The applicants have failed to demonstrate
any such illegality or arbitrariness. Their objections
are primarily based on apprehensions regarding
promotional avenues and perceived service
disadvantages, which cannot constitute a legally
enforceable right.
13.16 It is also evident that the applicants do not
possess any enforceable legal right to dictate the
structure of a cadre or the inclusion of particular posts
therein. At best, they may seek consideration for cadre
review; however, they cannot claim a vested right to
determine the outcome of such policy decisions.
13.17 We also agree with the submissions advanced on
behalf of GNCTD that the creation of posts and cadre
restructuring falls within the domain of executive
policy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and
Ors. us. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and ors.,
reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, the relevant portion
thereof has already been quoted in above para, has
categorically held that matters relating to the creation
or abolition of posts, structuring of cadres, and
prescription of service conditions fall within the
exclusive domain of the executive, and judicial
interference is warranted only where there is a clear
violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. No
such violation has been established in the present case.
13.18 Viewed from any angle whether under the
constitutional framework of Article 309, the statutory
interpretation of "Central Government," or the
consistent delegation of powers, the competence of the
Hon'ble Lt. Governor stands clearly established.
13.19 Thus, we hold that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor,


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 9 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

being a delegatee of the Hon'ble President under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, is fully
competent to frame Recruitment Rules for the DASS
cadre. The creation of Group 'A' posts within the said
cadre is legally valid and within jurisdiction; and the
impugned notification does not suffer from any lack of
competence, statutory violation, or constitutional
infirmity. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the
affirmative, in favour of the respondents and against
the applicants.”

13. The submissions of Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Behera are primarily
reiteration of the submissions as were advanced before the Tribunal,
including on the competence of the Lieutenant Governor to frame the RRs in
DASS Cadre after the commencement of the GNCTD (Amendment) Act
2023.
14. It is submitted by them that the rules are in violation of GNCTD

Amendment Act, 2023 which came into effect on 19.05.2023. As the Rules
were framed after 19.05.2023, the same are not protected. The submission is
that power to frame rules for Delhi government employees vests only with
the Central Government and prior delegations in favour of Lieutenant
Governor including those issued under Article 309 of the Constitution
ceases to exist.
15. Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Behera have drawn our attention to various
orders passed in the litigation initiated by the DANICS officers including an
order passed by this Court and also the order passed in the contempt petition
wherein, directions have been issued to decide cadre review of the DANICS
cadre. Their endeavour is in view of the orders passed, by the Tribunal/ this
Court there was no reason for the respondents to undertake the impugned


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 10 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

action, which impacts the Cadre restricting of DANICS. They justified the
challenge made, also on the ground, that the promotion rule from DASS
Grade-I to DANICS has become otiose. It shall also create constitutional,
legal, and administrative issues in the Civil Services in GNCTD. They seek
the prayers as made in the stay applications.
16. On the other hand, Mr. P. S. Patwalia, and Mr. Kirtiman Singh,
learned Senior counsels appearing for the DASS Officers would justify the
order passed by the Tribunal. It is their submission that the Tribunal vide the
impugned order has upheld the action of the respondents removing the
stagnation in the Grade-1 of the DASS cadre.
17. They contested the submissions made by Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Behera
by stating that the Lieutenant Governor is competent to frame rules in the
manner made. The cadre review/ framing of rules, in the given facts of this
case is to obviate/to remove the stagnation in the DASS cadre. It is a settled
law that such decisions are beyond the pale of judicial review. In fact, it is
their submission that, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the
creation of Group A posts in DASS Cadre. According to them, the
equivalent posts of DANICS which have been created in DASS Cadre were
not the encadred posts of DANICS. They were posts which were manned by
DANICS without any authority of law. It is these posts, which are being
encadred as Group A posts in DASS Cadre. They also stated in the absence
of challenge to the order dated 10.11.2023, the petitioners cannot challenge
the notification dated 24.12.2024, as the notification is pursuant to the
aforesaid order. In any case, it is also their submission that the order dated
10.11.2023 has been issued pursuant to the NOC given by the MHA vide its


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 11 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

letter dated 24.08.2023 and in that sense, the impugned action has the
approval / sanction of the Central Government. In fact, it is their submission
that action of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor is an action of the Central
Government. He stated that the attempt of the petitioners is to stall the
process which has been initiated almost 17 years back. They stated that this
Court shall allow the DPC which is scheduled on 12.06.2026 to undertake
its task. They seek the dismissal of the applications.
18. On the other hand, Ms. Pratima N. Lakra and Dr. Vijendra Singh
Mahndiyan, learned counsel for Union of India would contend contrary to
what has been stated before the Tribunal. On this, Mr. Patwalia would state
that the stand of the Union of India today is contrary to the written
submissions filed by the Union of India before the Tribunal.
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record, the only issue, to be decided at this stage, is whether the prayer as
made for stay of the DPC need to be granted.
20. The submissions of Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Behera challenging the
judgment of the Tribunal are many including the competency of the Hon’ble
Lt. Governor to issue the notification dated 24.12.2024, by which 217
Group A posts have been created/encadred. The Tribunal has taken a view
that the Central Government includes Hon’ble Lt. Governor of a Union
Territory. It is also held, that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor is competent. These
findings also answer the plea of Mr. Tripathi that after amendment to the
GNCTD Act, vide Section 45C, it is the Central Government, which can
make the rules. The issue is whether the creation of Group A posts in DASS
Cadre by a notification issued by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor is proper /


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 12 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

justified. The law is well settled. Prima facie we are in agreement with the
conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, which we have reproduced above.
21. Mr. Patwalia and Mr. Kritiman Singh have heavily relied upon the
submissions filed on behalf of the MHA before the Tribunal, which inter
alia, reads as under:-
“1 The Applicants have filed the present O.A. challenging
the action of Respondents No 1 & 2 (Union of India and
Ministry of Home Affairs) in conveying No Objection to
Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) for creation of 221
Group 'A' posts in the DASS cadre vide letter dated
24.08.2023 (Annexure R-3), pursuant to GNCTD's proposal
dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure R-2).
2 The Applicants contend that creation of such Group 'A'
posts outside DANICS will render the DANICS cadre
redundant, amounting to creation of a parallel State Civil
Service and Violating DANICS Rules, 2003.
3 The Respondents submit that the apprehension of the
Applicants is misconceived. The 221 posts are non-DANICS
/non-IAS: creation of these posts is based on administrative
necessity and High Court directions in W.P. (C) 11537/2018
(Delhi Govt. Officers & Employees Federation v. UOI)
dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure R-1)
4 Further, as per Department of Expenditure O.M. F.No.
7(1)/E.Coord-1/2017 dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure R-5), the
Lt. Governor of Delhi is competent to create Group A, B, C
& D posts within GNCTD, subject to fiscal prudence.

D. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1& 2
1. Creation of posts is within competence and does not
violate DANICS Rules
5. The newly created 221 posts are expressly non-
DANICS/non-IAS as certified by GNCTD. Therefore,
no alteration has been made in the composition or
strength of DANICS cadre under the 2003 Rules.
6 The Applicants apprehension that DANICS will


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 13 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

become redundant is purely speculative and
unsupported by facts. 57% of DANICS posts (176
out of 309) in Delhi are presently vacant due to non-
availability of eligible officers. Thus, there is no
deprivation of promotion prospects
2. MHA acted pursuant to judicial directions and due
process
7 The No Objection was issued in faithful
compliance with Delhi High Court's order dated
11.08.2023, which mandated MHA to decide
Proposal No. 2 within three weeks Hence, the action
flows directly from a judicial direction and cannot
be termed arbitrary or ultra vires
8. The MHA carefully examined representations of
the Applicants dated 01.06.2023, 12.06.2023, and
15.09.2023 before conveying its decision, thereby
satisfying principles of natural justice.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
6. No violation of Article 14 or arbitrariness
13. DASS and DANICS are distinct cadres catering to
different functional domains under GNCTD, the other under
MHA/JT Cadre. The classification is rational and based on
intelligible differentia, fulfilling administrative needs.”

22. That apart, what is important to be noted is the submission of Mr.
Patwalia and Mr. Singh that the posts encadered were never been the cadre
posts of DANICS/IAS. In that sense, they were outside the cadre of
DANICS/IAS. In fact, on a specific query to Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Behera to
show the notification which depict the 217 posts as part of the DANICS
Cadre, no reply is forthcoming. It follows, the rules being in place need to be
given effect to.
23. Without dilating much on the rival submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties, at this stage, as contended by Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 14 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23

counsel for UPSC, that the DPC has been scheduled for 12.06.2026, we are
of the view that the DPC should be allowed to do its task and conclude the
same, but the conclusion drawn by the DPC and orders issued thereof shall
be subject to the outcome of these petitions. The orders shall be issued by
taking undertaking from the officers that if the petitioners succeed in these
petitions, they are liable to be reverted to their original posts and they shall
not claim equities.
24. The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6651/2026 &
W.P.(C) 6658/2026

25. The written submissions be filed by the parties within a period of six
weeks from today.
26. Renotify on 19.08.2026.





V. KAMESWAR RAO, J



MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JUNE 01, 2026
RK


W.P.(C) 6651/2026 & W.P.(C) 6658/2026 Page 15 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.06.2026
14:05:23