Deepa Verma vs GNCTD on 30 October 2026

ORDER

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

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

F. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant.”

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

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

restructuring and could adversely affect the scientific functioning of the laboratory and the administration of criminal justice. She accordingly, questioned both the denial of promotion to her and the administrative arrangement made by the respondents. The counsel stated that the applicant had repeatedly represented to the competent authorities seeking regular promotion through a DPC and, in the alternative, ad-hoc promotion pending finalisation of the Recruitment Rules. Her representations included those dated 07.05.2025, 09.10.2025, 15.12.2025, 12.03.2026, 18.05.2026 and 31.07.2026. She also relied upon the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 06.09.2007, contending that it provided for consideration of a one-time method of recruitment in special circumstances where a newly created post was required to be filled urgently and the Recruitment Rules were yet to be finalised. She alleged that the respondents had neither granted her promotion nor appropriately dealt with her representations, despite her impending retirement on 31.10.2026. On the aforesaid basis, the counsel for the applicant contended that the continued inaction of the respondents violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. She asserted that the creation of the post, the departmental communications acknowledging her eligibility and the draft Recruitment Rules had given rise to a legitimate expectation that her candidature would be considered. She further contended that the absence of final Recruitment Rules could not be used to deny her consideration for promotion while an officer outside the technical cadre was permitted to discharge the functions of Principal Director, FSL. She therefore, approached this Tribunal to ventilate her grievance.

3. The counsel for the applicant argued assiduously on the following grounds :- “1. The action of the Respondents is in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The continuing inaction and failure of the Respondents in deciding the Applicant's representations for promotion is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.

2. The Respondents' repeated failure to constitute a DPC or grant ad-hoc promotion to the Applicant, despite her undisputed eligibility and the department's own admission (vide U.O. Note dated 10.06.2024) that she is "eligible for the same," is unreasonable and arbitrary.

3. Respondents have themselves recognized, through the letter dated 21.06.2024, that pending regular appointment to the Principal Director's post, financial and administrative powers of HoD continued to vest in the Director, FSL (the Applicant) and as HoD from 06.06.2024 to 14.02.2025 which was the duty / responsibility of Principal Director as per cadre restructuring order dated 06.06.2024. The same was later on ignored by the respondents.

4. The impugned appointment of DANICS / IAS officers as Principal Director, FSL, are ex facie contrary to the eligibility criteria contained in the draft Recruitment Rules dated 26.11.2024, which mandate that the post be filled by promotion of a Director, FSL, with 3 years' regular service, a criterion admittedly satisfied only by the Applicant.

5. Appointment of officer of non forensic background to head a highly specialized forensic institution like FSL is arbitrary, contrary to the object and purpose of the cadre restructuring itself i.e. strengthening forensic capabilities, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, being manifestly unreasonable and lacking any rational nexus with the post's functional requirements.

6. The post of Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist is a highly specialized scientific post requiring domain expertise. Appointment of officers having no forensic background adversely affects administration of justice, forensic investigations and public interest, and also defeating the very purpose behind creation of the post for career progression.

7. The repeated appointment of officers outside the technical cadre virtually abolishes the promotional avenue available to Directors of FSL, which is contrary to the service jurisprudence governing promotional posts and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

8. DoPT OM dated 06.09.2007 specifically permits ad-hoc/one- time recruitment measures where RRs for a newly created post

are still pending finalization, especially to avoid administrative vacuum, a mechanism the Respondents have selectively applied to appoint ineligible DANICS / IAS officers but withheld from the sole eligible candidate.

9. The Respondents cannot deny the Applicant promotion merely because the Recruitment Rules have not been finalized, at the same time appointing entirely ineligible and outside the cadre officer to a post which requires extensive scientific experience. Administrative delay in framing Recruitment Rules cannot prejudice the rights of an otherwise eligible employee, particularly where the post has already been created and the feeder cadre as well as eligibility criteria stand identified by the Respondents themselves.

10. The inaction of the Respondents effectively defeats the legitimate expectation created by the department's own recommendation dated 10.06.2024 recognizing the Applicant as the rightful claimant for ad-hoc promotion.

11. The Applicant is due to retire on 31.10.2026. Unless immediate directions are issued, the entire cause of action would become infructuous and the Applicant would suffer irreversible loss of promotional status, pay fixation, pension, gratuity, leave encashment and all consequential retiral benefits, which cannot be adequately compensated subsequently."

4. During arguments, the counsel for the applicant handed across the Bar a copy of order of her promotion dated 19.07.2017. The same is taken on record.

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

requisite Recruitment Rules were yet to be framed and notified and were still under process. The respondents denied that the creation of the post had automatically conferred upon the applicant a right to promotion. They submitted that a draft Recruitment Rule, unless duly approved and notified in accordance with law, could not confer a vested or enforceable right to appointment or promotion. According to them, eligibility for promotion had to be determined with reference to the Recruitment Rules in force on the relevant date, the sanctioned strength, the availability of vacancies, the prescribed method of recruitment and the procedure to be followed by the competent authority or the DPC. They therefore, disputed the applicant’s assertion that she was the only eligible officer for appointment to the post. The respondents further submitted that the order dated 16.06.2025 assigning the applicant to the post/designation of Director (Training) was an administrative decision taken by the competent authority in the interest of the administration of the laboratory. They denied that the said order was arbitrary or illegal and contended that the applicant had failed to establish any statutory violation or any vested right to continue as Director, FSL, or to hold a particular posting. They also denied that the appointment of an officer belonging to the DANICS/IAS cadre to discharge the administrative responsibilities of the Principal Director was prohibited by any applicable statutory provision. According to them, the applicant had not established that the administrative head of the laboratory was required, in all circumstances, to belong to the technical forensic cadre. They also referred to the operational and supervisory difficulties faced by the FSL during the relevant period. They stated that the laboratory had a backlog of

approximately 28,000 cases under various divisions in December 2024, resulting in considerable delays in forensic reporting. According to the respondents, the pendency had subsequently reduced to approximately 6,000 cases by August 2026. They attributed this improvement to the administrative and supervisory arrangements introduced following the appointment of officers from the DANICS/IAS cadre as Principal Director, FSL. They relied upon the monthly case reports for December 2024 and August 2026 in support of their submissions. The respondents further stated that a show-cause notice dated 10.01.2025 had been issued to the applicant by the Directorate of Vigilance, Government of NCT of Delhi, in relation to alleged non-compliance, delay and non-cooperation in the finalisation of disciplinary proceedings concerning cases pertaining to the FSL. They stated that the matter had not been settled till the filing of the reply. They also referred to another show-cause notice dated 17.04.2025 issued by the Additional Secretary (Home) in connection with the pendency and other related issues in the laboratory. These matters had been cited by the respondents as part of the administrative circumstances prevailing at the relevant time. In their para-wise reply, the respondents admitted the applicant’s service particulars only to the extent borne out by the official records. They denied that her long service, tenure as HoD or discharge of administrative and scientific responsibilities created a vested right to promotion to the post of Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist. They submitted that the U.O. Note dated 10.06.2024 and the communication dated 21.06.2024 had to be read in their proper administrative context and could not be treated as an order of promotion or

as a statutory determination of her entitlement. They also denied that the posting of an administrative officer amounted to a violation of the draft Recruitment Rules or established any illegality in the absence of final and operative Recruitment Rules. They further denied that the applicant was automatically entitled to ad-hoc promotion under the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 06.09.2007. They submitted that the applicability of the said memorandum depended upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the Recruitment Rules, the nature of the post, the applicable method of recruitment and the approval of the competent authority. They contended that the processing of a proposal for appointment to a newly created post necessarily involved examination of the Recruitment Rules, cadre position, eligibility, recruitment methodology and the approvals required under the applicable procedure. They therefore, denied that the pendency of the applicant’s representations or the delay in finalisation of the Recruitment Rules established a legal right to promotion. The respondents denied the allegations of discrimination and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. They submitted that the applicant’s claim was required to be considered in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and administrative procedure and that Article 16 did not confer an absolute right to promotion. They also denied that any legitimate expectation of promotion could arise merely from an internal departmental communication or from the consideration of an employee’s eligibility in a particular administrative context. On these grounds, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the O.A.

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

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

construction projects for various divisions were taken up in 2019, completed in 2023, and became functional in 2024. Following cadre restructuring, huge numbers of scientific, administrative, and IT posts were created through orders dated 06.06.2024 and 22.11.2024, raising the overall sanctioned strength from 707 to 1060. To tackle pendency as a time-gap arrangement, proposals to fill posts on a contract basis were submitted in 2024 and 2025, resulting in the appointment of more than 300 scientific personnel, alongside the attachment of approximately 90 M.Sc. interns and 150 Home Guards in 2025, bringing the total additional staff to around 550. The applicant disputed the claim that the post of Principal Director was completely administrative and supervisory, emphasizing that it required prolonged forensic domain experience—specifically in case examination work—as reflected in the requirement of three years of experience at the Director FSL level. She pointed out that the post of "Principal Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist," created on June 6, 2024, was notified as a "Scientific Expert" on July 1, 2024, to fulfill the mandatory requirements of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. She firmly denied that she had not participated in case reporting during her tenure as Head of Department (HOD) from August 2017 to February 13, 2025. Instead, she maintained that she regularly and technically reviewed cases reported by division heads, technical managers, and reporting officers in compliance with NABL quality policies, and that between February 13, 2025, and September 30, 2026, she personally reviewed approximately 500 cases as part of mandatory forensic report completions. Regarding the show-cause notices issued against her, the applicant stated that she submitted a due reply on 06.02.2025 to the

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

8. The counsel for the respondents also argued from their additional affidavit dated 19.10.2026 which was handed across the Bar that the petitioner has relied upon the draft RRs and has not attached the status report of finalisation and notification of RRs for the post of Principal Director. The counsel highlighted paras 3 to 6 of the additional affidavit which reads as under :- “3. That the Petitioner has relied upon the Draft RRs and has not attached the further the Status Report of finalization and notification of RRs for the post of Principal Director. It is submitted that vide clarification/ justification letter dated 30.04.2026, the name of the post as per UPSC comments has been rectified as Principal Director, in place of Principal Director- cum Chief Forensic Scientist, Level-14 (Rs. 1,44,200 – Rs. 2,18,200) in the pay matrix and consultation with the USPC has been submitted. Relevant clarification dated 30.04.2026 in respect of nomenclature of the post in draft RRs submitted by FSL, subsequently approval of UPSC for the name of the post as “Principle Director” are collectively annexed as Annexure R-1.

4. It is submitted that Minutes of the Meeting dated 23.11.2022 will only demonstrate that various issues relating to functioning, infrastructure, manpower and cadre restructuring of FSL were considered by the Competent Authority, however, the final is one sent by the Home Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi to the UPSC. It may also be pointed out that appointment of Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 16.06.2025 by the Govt. of NCT Delhi is to meet the exigencies of service in largest public interest as large number of cases for forensic examination and reports were pending for a long time and to streamline and monitor the working of the department, the appointment of Respondent No. 5 was made by the Government, who has been able to reduce the pendency from 27,000 pending cases to less than 6,000 cases within a period of one year. This was also so required on account of introduction of 3 new criminal laws mandating the timely submissions of the FSL Reports to the Courts, which will result into speedy justice to the victims.

5. It may also be pointed out that MTS recruited in the department are not competent to conduct any case examination reporting as the same is to be done by the qualified scientist who are appointed as Reporting Officers (JSA, JSO, SSA, SSO, AD and DD). Reviewing of only 500 cases as against 27,000 long pending cases for almost 15 years or even more.

6. It may also be pointed out that the post has been designated by the Competent Authority as Principal Director only and not as Principal Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist as claimed by the Petitioner and the Recruitment Rules have been sent to UPSC for

confirmation. This is also keeping in mind the fact that the role of Principal Director overall Administrative Supervision and Coordination with Forensic/Scientific and other Government Agencies, especially the Police Department. Merely because a post has been created does not give any legal right to an individual for promotion to the post without finalization and notification of the Recruitment Rules.

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

ineptitude, the respondents in their collective wisdom first posted a DANICS service officer and later on an IAS officer as Head of Department (HoD) who through his leadership traits, coordination and synergy skills was able to show excellent results and bring down the backlog of cases from 25,830 in June, 2025 to 5,402 in September, 2026. (NDPS cases - 300 in January, 2025 to 141 in September, 2026; POCSO cases - 1,301 in January, 2025 to 92 in September, 2026). This change of leadership was therefore positive for the efficiency and productivity of the organisation — Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini.

10. We have further observed that one needs more of 'general administrative and managerial skills' of bringing in synergy and coordination amongst the various departments of an organization; giving effective leadership and motivating teams to deliver results at the highest levels rather than technical skills (scientific & forensic) at the higher echelons of an organization. To give an analogy, the orchestra conductor is not necessarily a 'specialist' who specialises in playing the guitar/violin/accordion, but a 'generalist' who coordinates all the musicians' notes to deliver a melodious symphony. Moreover, it is the Executive's decision as to how, where and when to post officers to 'stem the rot' and usher in efficiency and productivity in a Govt. organisation. Moreover, the respondents are amending the RRs and replacing the highest post of Principal Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist (Level 14) (Rs 1,44,200 - Rs 2,18,200) in the pay matrix by the designation — Principal Director and submitted this proposal to UPSC which is seized of the matter. This is

purely an administrative and policy decision which falls in the domain of the Executive and under the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, does not call for a judicial review as per the ratio given in honourable Apex Court Judgments:

(i) TATA CELLULAR vs. UOI (1994) 6 SCC 651 and

(ii) P.U. Joshi vs. Advocate General, Accountant General, Ahmedabad (2003) 2 SCC 632 Also it is a settled principle in Administrative law and Service Jurisprudence as per the ratio given in the landmark Supreme Court Judgement in Civil Appeal No. 5835 of 2025 — P. Sakthi vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & others dated 02.05.2025 that while consideration for promotion is a right; per se promotion in case of a Govt. servant is not an inalienable and indefeasible right.

11. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the Respondents. The instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar manner. However, there will be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath)

(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A)

Member (J)

/Mbt/