Dr Anil Kumar Sharma vs HOME AFFAIRS on 14 October 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

By way of this O.A., applicant makes a prayer for setting aside the impugned Office Order dated 31.12.2025 so far the re-employment of respondent No. 6 to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist, DFSS w.e.f. 01.01.2026 is concerned.

2. Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed as Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology) [renamed as Scientist B] Group A Gazetted on 30.03.1994 in the Respondent Department and joined at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata. He was thereafter, promoted as Assistant Director in 2002 and as Deputy Director in 2010. On 01.05.2017, he was transferred to Guwahati and posted at Central Forensic Laboratory, Kamrup. He was thereafter, promoted as Director (Level 13) w.e.f 07.08.2017 by order dated 09.08.2017 along with the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

respondent no. 6, who later was promoted as Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist, Directorate of Forensic Science Services, MHA(Leve1 14) w.e.f. 24.03.2021. The applicant is now due to retire on superannuation on 31.10.2026.

3. Dr. Sharma further submitted that the next promotional avenue of the applicant under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist Recruitment Rules, 2020, is to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist. It is stated that Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist is the highest and single post in the Respondent Organization. The method of recruitment to the said promotional post under RR, 2020 is by way of promotion failing which by Deputation (including short-term contract). The eligibility for promotion to the said post is minimum of 3 years of regular service as Director in Level 13 (Rs. 1,23,100-2,l5,900) of the pay matrix. Applicant completed 3 years of regular service in the post of Director (Level

07.08.2020 and became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist. The vacancy in the post Director cum Chief Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Forensic Sen/ice was due to arise on 31.12.2025 on the due date of retirement on superannuation of the incumbent Dr. S. K. Jain, the respondent no. 6. On 31.12.2025 and till date, the applicant is the senior most Director and eligible for promotion to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist.

4. That the DOPT by OM dated 08.05.2017 issued model calendar for conducting DPC well in advance and making ready of approved select panels on the date of commencement of the vacancy year. As an instance, against the vacancy year 2019, DPC was to be held between 15th April-August, 2018 and approved select panel was to be made ready by 31.12.2018. DOPT OM dated 27.08.2021 again instructed for strict adherence to the timelines prescribed in the model calendar for convening of DPC/Preparation of approved select panels. That MHA (WSD) submitted DPC proposal for promotion to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist on 09.07.2025. Thereafter, UPSC by letter dated 26.08.2025 communicated the date of DPC to the Secretary MHA (Women Safety Division) New Delhi for promotion to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Service

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

as 02.09.2025 at 11 AM. UPSC accordingly directed the department not to ask for the postponement of the meeting. The Under Secretary, GOI MHA/WSD by letter dated 29.08.2025 requested the Secretary, UPSC to defer the DPC due to official exigencies and accordingly, UPSC by letter dated 02.09.2025 intimated that DPC meeting for promotion to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist which was scheduled to be held on 02.09.2025 at 11 AM has been deferred. Thereafter, the Under Secretary, GOI, MHA (WSD) by letter dated 10.11.2025 issued to the Secretary UPSC stated that DPC proposal submitted by Ministry’s OM dated 09.07.2025 has been withdrawn on administrative ground. It was also mentioned that the Ministry may submit a revised proposal at a later stage if necessitated. Accordingly, UPSC by letter dated 19.11.2025 returned the proposal along with all the CR dossiers to the MHA 9WSD).

5. As per Dr. Sharma, on 31.12.2025, applicant was the senior most eligible person in the post of Director (Level 13) due to be considered for promotion to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist (Level 14) against the vacancy

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

due to arise on retirement on superannuation of Dr. S.K. Jain, for which, DPC ought to have held and the select panel approval was well in advance. Besides, APAR gradings of the applicant were Outstanding and there is no impediment to consider and deny promotion to the applicant to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist. Being aggrieved, applicant submitted a representation dated 10.12.2025 to the Respondent no. 2 through email for consideration of timely promotion to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist, DFSS and for personal hearing to discuss the matter in person. Applicant again submitted a representation dated 23.12.2025 to Respondent no. 2 through email. However, without deciding on the pending representations of the applicant, the respondents by Office order dated 31.12.2025 reemployed Dr S.K Jain, Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist, (who was retiring on superannuation on 31.12.2025) to the post of Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist in the Directorate of Forensic Science Services for a period of one year w.e.f 01.01.2026 and until further orders on usual terms and conditions as applicable to reemployed Central Govt.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

officers. Said Office Order was issued with the approval of the competent authority, MHA by their OM dated 30.12.2025.

6. Dr. Sharma has also referred F.R. 56 (a) which provides that except as otherwise provided in F.R and S.R, every govt. servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. The DOPT also by OM dated 09.12.2002 issued instruction on grant of extension/re-employment to Central Govt. servants beyond the age of superannuation. However, regarding reemployment, the OM provides that no proposal for employing a Govt. servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered. In view of this, reemployment of the respondent No. 6 by impugned order dated 31.12.2025 is highly arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside and quashed so far reemployment of respondent No. 6 w.e.f. 01.01.2026.

7. By filing written statement, Sri P. Saikia, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that consequent upon retirement of Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jain, Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist, DFSS on 31.12.2025, the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved his re-employment to the post of the Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist, DFSS for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.01.2026 and until further orders, on usual terms and conditions as applicable to reemployed Central Government Officers. The Recruitment Rules for the post of the Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist (Level-14) under the DFSS prescribe appointment by promotion, failing which by deputation (including short-term contract). The post represents that apex position of the DFSS, which functions as the national technical organization for forensic sciences and exercised both administrative and technical control over all outlying CFSLs presently seven operational CFSLs, with eight additional CFSLS which are under process of being established.

8. Sri Saikia has further contended that the DoP&T's O.M. No. 26012/6/2002-Estt.(A) dated 09.12.2002 provides that following criteria and procedure has been evolved with a view to ensure that extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. The overriding consideration for

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

the grant of extension is that it must be in the public interest and in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:- (a) that the retiring specialist is not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest; or (b) that other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job.

As per Sri Saikia, the Applicant has no vested, accrued or enforceable right to claim promotion to the post of Director- cum-Chief Forensic Scientist merely on the basis of seniority. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that an employee has only a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules and subject to availability of a vacancy, and not a right to promotion as a matter of course. In the present case, no vacancy arose in the said post upon superannuation of the incumbent, as the competent authority, namely the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, in exercise of its executive powers and in public interest, approved the re-employment of the incumbent for a specified period of one year. The applicant cannot, therefore, seek to challenge a policy decision taken by the competent authority in public interest merely on the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

ground that he happens to be the senior-most officer in the feeder grade. That Seniority by itself does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion, particularly in respect of a post at a high policy level.

9. By filing written statement, Dr. A. Todi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted that in terms of the DoP&T instructions regarding advance action for filling anticipated vacancies, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) forwarded a proposal to UPSC on 09.07.2025 for convening a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider promotion to the post of Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist. The Commission had fixed the DPC meeting for 02.09.2025. However, at the request of MHA, the meeting was deferred and, subsequently, the proposal itself was withdrawn on 10.11.2025 on the ground of "administrative reasons". Consequently, no DPC was held and no select panel was finalized prior to the occurrence of the vacancy. That upon receipt of the aforesaid request from the Ministry, the Commission returned the proposal along with the records to the Ministry vide communication dated 19.11.2025. Thus, the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

proposal for holding the DPC stood withdrawn at the instance of the requisitioning Ministry itself and not on account of any decision taken by the Commission. The Commission has no objection to processing any proposal for promotion to the post of Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist, DFSS, if and when the same is received from the concerned Ministry/Department in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and extant instructions. Upon receipt of a complete proposal along with the requisite records and documents, the matter would be examined by the Commission and further action for convening the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), if found in order, would be taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

10. Against the written statement of official respondent Nos. 1 to 5, applicant has also filed rejoinder wherein he has stated that Extension of service continues an employee’s existing contract immediately after superannuation in the same post, keeping them under original service conditions whereas Re-employment is a new, separate contract initiated

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

after retirement, usually involving different terms, often in a different capacity, and is subject to new contractual conditions. But the respondents have used the term and purport of the expressions re-employment and extension interchangeably to give undue favour to the respondent No. 6 in furtherance of malice and malafide against the applicant. As per the applicant, the respondents are barred from supplementing the grounds and reasons, if any, in the impugned order dated 31.12.2025.

11. We have heard the arguments advanced by the rival parties, perused the documents and scrutinised the entire conspectus of the case.

12. During argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance the following decisions:

(i) Mohinder Singh Gill and Ors. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., dated 02.12.1977 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1297 of 1977, Para 8.

(ii) Vishal Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and Others dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in WCP No. 231 of 2025.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

(iii) R.K. Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. dated 23.08.2017 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 6527 of 2017. We have perused the aforesaid decisions and the same are taken on record.

13. The primary grievance of the applicant is that the impugned order of re-employment of Respondent No. 6 dated 31.12.2025 is non-speaking, unreasoned, and therefore arbitrary. To evaluate this claim, we have examined the relevant statutory provisions and policy executive instructions governing scientific posts in the Central Government.

14. It is an established fact that private Respondent No. 6, Dr. S.K. Jain, Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist, DFSS, was retiring on superannuation on 31.12.2025. He was re- employed for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.01.2026 under the explicit approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) issued via MHA order dated 30.12.2025. A review of the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 08.07.2020, which codifies the rules and regulations of recruitment for the post of Director-cum-Chief Forensic

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Scientist, reveals that Para 5 explicitly reserves relaxation powers for the Government. It mandates that where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing in consultation with the UPSC, relax any provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons. Crucially, DoP&T O.M. No. 26012/6/2002-Estt.(A) dated 09.12.2002 evolves a specific procedure to ensure that extensions in service to superannuating scientists are resorted to in exceptional circumstances in the public interest. The overriding consideration is met if:

(a) the retiring specialist is not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest; or (b) that other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job.

15. This position is further fortified by the subsequent DoP&T consolidated guidelines issued via O.M. No. DOPT- 1669894287310 dated 01.12.2022 regarding superannuation, extension in service, and re-employment. Para (d) thereof explicitly encapsulates:

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

“Provided further that a specialist in medical or scientific fields may be granted extension of service up to the age of sixty-two years, if such extension is in public interest and the grounds for such extension are recorded in writing”.

16. Moving to the timeline of the DPC, it is on record that though the Commission fixed the DPC meeting for 02.09.2025, the meeting was deferred at the request of the MHA. Subsequently, the MHA withdrew the DPC proposal entirely on 10.11.2025 on the grounds of "administrative reasons." Consequently, no DPC was finalized, and no select panel was in existence prior to the occurrence of the vacancy.

17. Although the applicant completed his eligibility service on 07.08.2020 and was the senior-most eligible Director for consideration against the vacancy anticipated on 01.01.2026, his claim for regular promotion cannot be sustained at this stage. It is settled law that a public servant has a right to be considered for promotion, but has no vested right to claim promotion on a specific date, especially when the DPC proposal stood legally withdrawn by the Ministry on administrative grounds on 10.11.2025.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

18. The choice to fill a post through regular promotion or to temporarily meet administrative exigencies in a highly specialized national technical organization via re- employment falls squarely within the administrative domain of the sovereign. The ACC, being the highest executive authority for approving apex appointments, rightly approved the re-employment of Dr. S.K. Jain for one year as per the enabling statutory safeguards contained in Para (d) of the DoP&T O.M. dated 01.12.2022. The order cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal.

19. In view of the above stated facts, legal provisions, and detailed analysis, the instant O.A. does not merit any interference by this Tribunal.

19. The Original Application is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY