Delhi CAT Rejects FSL Director’s Promotion Bid, Citing 28,000-Case Backlog Under Her Leadership And Unfinalised Rules for New Post

The applicant, a Director and former Head of Department at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), sought consideration for promotion to the newly created post of Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist.

She relied on the draft Recruitment Rules (RRs), which contemplated promotion from eligible Directors, and on departmental communications concerning her role as HoD.

The RRs had not been finalised or notified; the Government instead appointed officers from the DANICS/IAS cadre to head the FSL and posted the applicant as Director (Training), which she challenged as a non-existent post.

The respondents maintained that the appointments were administrative arrangements made in the public interest and denied that the applicant had an enforceable right to promotion under draft RRs.

She also sought ad hoc promotion, consequential benefits and a direction to convene a DPC.

The Tribunal heard the parties’ submissions and considered an additional affidavit and authorities cited by the respondents.

Under State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash, there is no universal rule requiring vacancies to be filled under the rules existing when they arose; the Government may decide not to fill vacancies pending new rules, particularly where cadre restructuring is intended to improve administration.

The Tribunal also relied on Tata Cellular v. Union of India and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad in treating administrative and policy choices as matters for the Executive, subject to judicial review within established limits.

It further applied the principle attributed to P. Sakthi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, but no indefeasible right to promotion itself.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; it did not treat the draft RRs or the DoPT Office Memorandum as creating a present entitlement to promotion.

The Tribunal held that the draft RRs had not become operative and that creation of the post, the applicant’s service record and departmental communications did not establish a vested right to promotion or require a DPC or ad hoc appointment.

It accepted the respondents’ position that appointment of administrative-cadre officers was an executive arrangement made to address FSL pendency, noting the reported reduction in cases from 25,830 in June 2025 to 5,402 in September 2026.

It considered the choice of leadership and the proposed change in the post’s designation to be administrative and policy matters, and found no basis for judicial intervention.

The Tribunal also assessed the applicant’s prior tenure as HoD against the backlog figures, concluding that the respondents’ change in leadership had improved the organisation’s performance.

It dismissed the O.A. as devoid of merit, disposed of any pending MAs accordingly, and made no order as to costs.