Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijender Singh vs Gnctd on 20 November, 2025
1 O.A No. 3359/2024
Item 31 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3359/2024
Reserved on : 11.11.2025
Pronounced on : 20.11.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Vijender Singh
S/o Sh. Surat Singh
Aged about 46 years
R/o WZ 151, Dabri Village, New Delhi-110045
Working as Assistant Director (Documents)
RFSL, Chanakyapuri, Delhi
2. Vijay Raj Anand
S/o late Sh. Narender Bahadur
Aged about 50 years
R/o B1/109, Delhi Government Quarters
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
Working as Division Head-Assistant Director (Ballistics)
FSL, Rohini, Delhi - 85
3. Dr. Asha Pahwa
W/o Sh. Manoj Pahwa
Aged about 49 years
R/o House no. 116-117, ground Floor Pocket-21,
Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi
Working as Division Head-Assistant Director (Lie-Detection)
FSL, Rohini, Delhi - 85
4. Aman Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. T.P.S. Yadav
Aged about 52 years
R/o G3/2, Police Colony, Andrews Ganj
New Delh-110049
Woking as Senior Scientific Officer
(Lie Detection & Division head Finger Print)
FSL, Rohini, Delhi - 85
5. Avdesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma
Aged about 53 years
2 O.A No. 3359/2024
Item 31 (C-3)
R/o Flot no. 59 and 60, 1st Floor, Pocket-9,
near DDA Park, Sector-23, Rohini
Working as Senior Scientific Officer (Document)
FSL, Rohini, Delhi - 85
6. Ateet Pal
S/o Sh. Trilok Chand
Aged about 40 years
R/o House no. 1, Nehru Kutiya,
Malka Gunj Delhi-110007
Working as Senior Scientific Officer (Lie Detection)
FSL, Rohini, Delhi - 85 ....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Sudarshan Ranjan and Mr. Ramesh Rawat)
Vs.
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi
Through the Chief Secretary,
5th Floor, A Wing
Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. Additional Chief Secretary (Home)
Home Department, 5th Floor, C Wing
Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
3. Director Forensic Scientific Laboratory,
Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi - 85 ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Anand)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by Mr. Vijender Singh and five other similarly situated applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- 3 O.A No. 3359/2024
Item 31 (C-3) "(a) call for the records leading to the issue of the impugned order issued by the respondents;
(b) Quash and set aside the office order dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure A. 1);
(c) Direct the Respondents to conduct cadre review of the posts following the guidelines of the DOP&T in terms of O.M. no. I-11011/16/2022-CRD dated 30.09.2022 in a manner which is not against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(d) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass such other suitable order or orders it may deem fit to meet the ends of justice."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicants is that the applicants who are working in different capacities and who belong to Scientific cadre in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) are aggrieved by an office order dated 06.06.2024 vide which the respondents have directed restructuring of Scientific, Ministerial, Information Technology and Accounts Cadre. According to the counsel, the said cadre review blatantly violates the guidelines issued by DoPT as well as observations made by the Home Department of Delhi Govt. which is the nodal authority for respondent no. 3. Counsel has alleged mala fide against the respondents, particularly respondent no. 3 who initiated and processed the said restructuring exercise just to favour some of the officers who happened to be the committee members of the Committee tasked for this restructuring exercise. According to the counsel, the committee had without any 4 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) logical grounds recommended modification by clubbing eleven divisions into six verticals to enable the committee members to get accelerated promotion in their respective verticals depriving senior incumbents in other verticals from promotion as per the seniority list. Moreover, the entire purpose of restructuring had been defeated as respondent no. 3 recommended abolition of posts of Assistant Directors and Senior Scientific Officers despite having shortage of staff resulting in huge pendency of cases in FSL. The counsel highlighted various lacunae in cadre restructuring which are reproduced below:-
"On page 96/N of the office noting file titled Cadre Restructuring & Post Creation in FSL at para 219, it has been observed as under:-
"219. As regards the deletion and recreation of post at Asst. Director and above level, the matter was examined as directed by ACS (Home) and it seems that reduction of post at level of Asst. Director from 47 to 37, recreation of 07 post of Dy. Director to be filled vertical wise instead of existing RR of combined cadre of Asst. Directors will create problem in cadre by promoting junior in particular division over the already senior officer in parallel cadre. e.g. the vertical of Documents, Finger Print, Forensic Psychology/Lie Detection and Photos have been clubbed into one vertical with one post at level of Dy. Director as against the 10 post at level of Asst. Director. Similarly, in Chemistry & Biology 01 post at level of Dy. Director has been created as against only 06 posts of Asst. Directors. In Cyber Forensic Division 02 post of Dy. Director has been created against 12 proposed posts of Asst. Director wherein only 01 Asst. Director and 01 SSO below is in position i.e. SSO level person in division may become Dy. Director immediately whereas Asst. Director in other division already stagnating for last 10-12 years will be left behind."
2. Similarly on page 105/N of the office noting file titled Cadre Restructuring & Post Creation in FSL at para 259, it has been observed as under: -
"259 On perusal of the same, it is observed that the proposed merger of divisions may inadvertently impede 5 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) promotion avenues for deserving officers and officials within the organization. The Cadre Re-structuring in the present form may cause promotions for those already junior, whereas some of the seniors may be deprived of the promotion."
3. Again, on page 113/N of the office noting file titled Cadre Restructuring & Post Creation in FSL at para 274, it has been observed as under: -
"274 It is observed that with the grouping of divisions into six (06) verticals, the post of Dy. Director, which was common pool post covering all the division has also become vertical-wise; and hence, may inadvertently impede promotion avenues for deserving officers and officials within the organization. The Cadre Re-structuring in the present form may cause promotions for those already junior, whereas some of the seniors may be deprived of the promotion."
4. Similarly on page 114/N of the office noting file titled Cadre Restructuring & Post Creation in FSL at para 276, it has been observed as under: -
"276. Such reduction in the no. of post in r/o. Sr. Scientific Officer, Asst. Director and Recreation of Post of Dy. Director on vertical wise basis is not contributing to achieve the twin purposes of cadre re-structure which are:
(1) To increase the number of posts in the FSL so as to deal with larger pendency of cases.
(2) To provide better avenues for promotion/career progression at various levels."
The cadre controlling authority i.e. Home Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi also has recommended for reviewing of cadre restructuring.
1. On page 106/N of the office noting file titled Cadre Restructuring & Post Creation in FSL at para 262, it has been observed as under-
"262. The Cadre Structure needs to be reviewed before notifying in this regard and also on account of certain other aspects including the issues related to staff/ officers manning the posts approved for abolition? Surrender. For this purpose, if agreed, a committee comprising of the representatives of Home, Services, AR, Finance, may be constituted to review the matters related to same, and make appropriate recommendations."6 O.A No. 3359/2024
Item 31 (C-3)
2. On page 114/N of the office noting file titled Cadre Restructuring & Post Creation in FSL at para 278, it has been observed as under-
278. It is apparent from the above facts that the cadre restructuring if applied to the post of Sr. Scientific officer, Asst. Director and Dy. Director would amounts to reducing the future chances of promotion/career progression to the incumbents in the feeder grades below these posts. As such, the matter related to the surrender/abolition/reduction in posts as referred at Para 273 and proposal for creation of additional post in FSL (Delhi) as referred at Para 277 may be referred to the AR Department for re-examination. Hence, the same may be kept in abeyance till the receipt of recommendation of AR Deptt. And appropriate decision by the competent Authority in this matter.
The above observations manifest that the entire cadre restructuring has been done with the intent to give accelerated benefits to some chosen officers who are much juniors than some of the Applicants in the present O.A and restructuring is not properly done."
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents the applicants preferred representations dated 01.08.2024 via email to the respondents requesting to withdraw the order dated 06.06.2024 regarding cadre restructuring and granting them promotion as per their entitlement. However, pending disposal of their representations they have approached this Tribunal for ventilation of their grievance.
3. The grounds urged by the applicants are as under :-
"1. The Applicants respectfully submit that while amending the recruitment Rules, the authority should ensure that such an amendment ensures that the promotional avenues of the existing incumbents to various posts do not dwindle down sharply and by design or otherwise, it does not reduce the horizon of chances of promotion to many to facilitate promotion prospects of certain vested interests in the hierarchy. The amendment sought to be followed does not appear to be rational especially when the workload at one 7 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) unit warrants more man power, the proposal reduces manpower. The action of the Respondents has resulted in absolute discrimination against them while resulting in favour to various other incumbents. Grouping of divisions into six verticals at the level of Deputy Directors which had a common seniority, renders the division vertical wise and impeach the promotional avenues for deserving officers who are higher in seniority as compare to many others. Thus, the promotional avenues available to the Applicants have been virtually denied. The cadre restructuring also result in grant of accelerated promotions to certain juniors while depriving the seniors of their vested right to such promotions. This would be a cause of great heart burn to the existing incumbent who have been serving the GNCT of Delhi without any cause of complaint.
2. The Respondents have passed the office order dated 06.06 2024 favouring the four committee members who were part of the entire cadre restructuring process. In other words in order to grant accelerated promotion to these officers who were juniors in the combined seniority lists, the Respondents have passed the office order dated 06.06.2024 which would result in the applicants stagnating at their respective posts despite being seniors to various other incumbents who would get accelerated promotions.
3. The Applicants respectfully submit that although the backlog of work indicated requirement of increasing the number of posts, nevertheless the respondents have reduced the number of posts at various levels without any justification or rational.
Further, such acts some merely done to favour officers who get accelerated promotions to get future promotions also on time. On the other hand, the Applicants and other similarly placed officers would be left high and dry without any scope for promotions.
4. Seeing various lacunas in the entire cadre restructuring even objections and concerns raised by Additional Chief Secretary the respondent no. 1 without applying his own mind and without taking into consideration representations objections raised and interest of all the stake holder approved the impugned cadre restructuring.
5. The division of the various posts into different cadres with different seniority lists is based on unreasonable classification and thus, liable to be stayed/set aside.
6. The proposed amendment to the recruitment rules are intended to favour particular individuals/officers while depriving others of their rights to timely promotions.8 O.A No. 3359/2024
Item 31 (C-3)
7. Curiously, the members of the Special Committee who worked on the proposal for cadre restructuring would all get accelerated promotions while the applicants would languish in their respective posts, establishing malafides on part of the respondents.
8. There is no rational or reasonableness in the classification of the posts under different fields of specialization as would be apparent from the perusal of the file containing the office noting.
9. Juniors would get accelerated promotions while seniors would be compelled to continue in the lower feeder grades resulting in heart burn amongst the seniors.
10. The action of the respondents is violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. The Respondents are contemplating acting on the office order dated 06.06.2024 even without formally amending the recruitment rules,
12. The observation of the Home Department in the official noting file titled Cadre Restructuring & Post Creation in FSL is as follows:
"On perusal of the same, it is observed that the proposed merger of divisions may inadvertently impede promotion avenues for deserving officers and officials within the organisation. The Cadre Re-structuring in the present form may cause promotions for those already junior, whereas some of the seniors may be deprived of the promotion."
These noting of the home department clearly shows that there are not only lacunas in the cadre restructuring but it has been brought to given benefits to some of the officials who are juniors to the applicants
13. It is submitted that vide Order No.F.23(1)/2023/ITC/7539-7608 dated 30.10.2023 Government of NCT of Delhi has reviewed the cadre of Information and Technology Department. The GNCT of Delhi, therein, has adopted/observed the cumbersome procedure of the DOPT to some extent but in cadre review of FSL it has not been followed by respondents. In the Secretary (view of Information and Technology Department, Firstly, Chief Secretary, Delhi vide order dated 30.09.2022 had constituted a High Level Committee under the chairmanship of Addl. Chief Secretary (GAD)/Addi Chief Secretary (AR) with Secy (IT), Secy. (Finance) Spl. Secy (ARI/AR-II) Spl. Secy(services) but in present case, the proposal has been initiated by at the instances of the 9 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) Director (FSL) on the recommendations of her sub-ordinate Officers of FSL of her choice, and who themselves beneficiaries of the cadre review. In the present case, such High-Power Committee has never been constituted and made its recommendations as followed in case IT Department.
14. The respondents have not followed the guidelines of the DOP&T O.M. no. 1-11011/16/2022-CRD dated 30.09.2022 with regard to the composition of the Cadre Review Committee.
15. As per the O.M. dated 30.09.2022 the respondents have not even followed the procedure for cadre review proposal which itself shows that the impugned cadre restructuring is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
16. The respondent no. 3 along with committee members have mislead and misguided the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 while conducting the cadre review just in order to give undue benefits to herself by creating a higher post and her favourite officers thereby curtailing the rights of the applicants. It is pertinent to mention herein that the respondent no. 3 had malafide intention while conducting the impugned cadre review depriving the applicants and likewise officers from their legitimate claim and only in order to give undue benefits to herself and her favourite officers.
17. The functional clarity as shown in the proposal is only for the name's sake and it is only to give benefit to the selected officers of Respondent no 3 and to create the post of Chief Director, at par DFSS, MHA, GOI is completely eyewash. The DFSS, MHA, GOI is the nodal agency of all the Central Forensic Science Laboratories (CFSL's) located in diffident states in India. It is matter of fact that the FSL is placed similar to CFSL in a state but herein respondent no 3 mislead the Respondent No. 1 and 2 by placing it similar to DFSS, MHA, GOI. Therefore, there is no requirement at all for creation of new post with the nomenclature of Chief Director. The present post of Director is sufficient for smooth functioning of the Lab and the same is at par of Director, CFSL in any state. There is not functional justification for creation of the post Chief Director and to balance it.
18. The total strength in post of Assistant Director (Physical) was 8. Out of 8 posts, 7 posts have been occupied by regular incumbents. Upon implementation of cadre restructuring 3 posts of Assistant Director (Physical) have been abolished, thereby resulting in only 4 balance posts being available against which 7 officers would continue to work. Thus, the future of such incumbents would be in the 10 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) dark and officers in the feeder cadre, cadre of AD (Physical) and promotional cadres in the division would diminish considerably. It is also submitted the similar situation has also been created in vertical of documents and Scientific support.
19. Since the competent authority has not taken the decision of cadre restructuring the action of the respondents is void ab initio.
20. The seniority list itself shows that the officers who are juniors to the applicants in the seniority list would be benefited if the proposed cadre restructuring would take place. A copy of the illustration showing as to how the applicant will be affected impugned cadre restricting is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-14."
4. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents argued strenuously from his counter affidavit that before cadre review, seniority was maintained division wise for the posts of Laboratory Assistants, Scientific Assistant, Senior Scientific Assistant and Senior Scientific Officer. However, inter se seniority of Assistant Directors was being maintained. He added that after cadre review, the seniority of Junior Scientific Assistant, Senior Scientific Assistant, Junior Scientific Officer, Senior Scientific Officer and Assistant Directors would be maintained Division wise except seniority of Deputy Director which would be maintained in inter se manner. According to the counsel, post cadre review various officers would now become eligible for promotion to the three sanctioned posts of Director which was only one prior to the restructuring. He further stated that the restructuring has been done with due diligence discussion and deliberation and with the approval of the competent authority viz. Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi 11 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) which was very much required for better management of work and better future career progression. He denied the allegations made by the applicants that the restructuring has been done to favour any officer/official. The counsel highlighted para 4.11 & 4.12 of his reply which makes it clear that the cadre review was done under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Lt. Governor with a view to create more posts at certain levels. The said paras are quoted below :-
"4.11 The proposal of setting up of an independent Cyber Forensic Division was already taken up in the year 2018 due to new sort of evidences in digital form (mobile phone, CCTV footage etc.) and high coming of cases and further in respect of directions of Hon'ble High Court issued on various dated. Accordingly, new 108 scientific posts at different level were created for this division and 16 posts of Computer Forensic Unit (CFU) under Document Division were also transferred & re-designated for Cyber Forensic Division on which Competent Authority's approval was issued vide order no. F.33/282/Home Deptt./3481-89 dated 02.03.2023. It is also to mention that Cyber Forensic Division has been working as an independent division since November, 2020 with the existing officers/ officials and the applicants/petitioners 01 to 06 were not working in Cyber Forensic Division at any part of time.
4.12 During the meeting dated 23.11.2022 under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Lt. Governor, with a view that cadre structure of FSL Delhi has not been reviewed and same is required to be reviewed to create more posts at the level of Deputy Director, Joint Director and Additional Directors. The Chief Secretary suggested that the pay scale of Director, FSL is also required to be reviewed."
Counsel further contended that the applicants intend to hamper the progress of FSL and career opportunity of the employees due to their own vested interest. Thus, he prayed that the OA be dismissed as the implementation of the cadre restructuring of FSL has already been 12 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) started for effective execution of 3 new Sanhitas which are enforced w.e.f. 01.07.2024.
5. He put reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jagdev vs. State - Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 912/2017 wherein it has been directed to have world class examination facility at par with International standards and the Chief Secretary was directed to look into the matter. He also relied upon Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in its own motion (Crl. Ref.1/2023 and Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in SMW (CRL.) No.1/2019 wherein directions were issued to ensure reports of such analysis be sent promptly and without any delay.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the relevant documents and records and perused the rulings cited. We are of the considered opinion that the Committee set up for restructuring of the administrative, Scientific and Technical cadre of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Govt. of Delhi had already done the due diligence. We do not find any bias/prejudice/partiality in the mens rea/attitude of the Committee members. They have acted in the best interest and welfare of the organisation. Later their cadre restructuring report was also examined by a Committee of Senior Officers of GNCT Delhi under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Secretary and the following was 13 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) recorded in the file :-
14 O.A No. 3359/2024
Item 31 (C-3) 15 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) 16 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) 17 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) 18 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) 19 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) 20 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) 21 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) 22 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) 23 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) 24 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) From the above, it is abundantly clear that the cadre restructuring exercise has already been approved by Hon'ble LG-Delhi. We would therefore not be inclined now to interfere in such administrative policy decision under judicial review as there seems to be no illegality;
irrationality; procedural impropriety and dis-proportionality committed by the respondents - the four grounds fit for judicial review given by Lord Diplock.
7. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision in Dr. Jaya Thakur vs. UOI & Ors. - W.P (C) No. 456/2022 dated 11.07.2023 has also given force and momentum to our findings that the scope of judicial review in examining the legislative functions of the Legislature and the administrative decisions of the Executive is very limited. To emphasis this, the excerpts of the said judgment are as under :-
66. For considering the issue with regard to validity of the Amendments, it will be apposite to refer to some of the judgments of this Court delineating the scope of the judicial review in examining the legislative functions of the Legislature.
67. A bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of Asif Hameed and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others observed thus:
"17. Before adverting to the controversy directly involved in these appeals we may have a fresh look on the inter se functioning of the three organs of democracy under our Constitution. Although the doctrine of separation of powers has recognised under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the Constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution trusts to the judgment of these organs to function and exercise their discretion by 25 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. legislature and executive, the two facets of people's will, they have all the powers including that of finance. Judiciary has no power over sword or the purse nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of State function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self-imposed discipline of judicial restraint."
18. Frankfurter, J. of the U.S. Supreme Court dissenting in the controversial expatriation case of Trop v. Dulles [356 US 86] observed as under:
"All power is, in Madison's phrase, "of an encroaching nature". Judicial power is not immune against this human weakness. It also must be on guard against encroaching beyond its proper bounds, and not the less so since the only restraint upon it is self-restraint....
Rigorous observance of the difference between limits of power and wise exercise of power between questions of authority and questions of prudence requires the most alert appreciation of this decisive but subtle relationship of two concepts that too easily coalesce. No less does it require a disciplined will to adhere to the difference. It is not easy to stand aloof and allow want of wisdom to prevail to disregard one's own strongly held view of what is wise in the conduct of affairs. But it is not the business of this Court to pronounce policy. It must observe a fastidious regard for limitations on its own power, and this precludes the court's giving effect to its own notions of what is wise or politic. That self-restraint is of the essence in the observance of the judicial oath, for the Constitution has not authorized the judges to sit in judgment on the wisdom of what Congress and the executive branch do."
19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and 26 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an Appellate Authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers.
68. It could thus be seen that the role of the judiciary is to ensure that the aforesaid two organs of the State i.e. the Legislature and the Executive function within the constitutional limits. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The role of this Court is limited to examine as to whether the Legislature or the Executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution. However, while doing so, the court must remain within its self-imposed limits."
8. We would also not be inclined to interfere in this matter as we are of the considered opinion that Forensic Science Laboratory is a Scientific and Technical organisation embracing the specialised fields of Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Toxicology, Serology, Human DNA, Cyber Cloud, Electronic and Network Forensics, Finger Print, Forensic Psychology, Crime Scene Management etc. We do not possess the requisite domain knowledge and core competence to appraise and evaluate the fine nuances of these subjects and the human resource requirements to handle them and to keep them sufficiently motivated through optimum trajectories of career progression. These are best left to the sagacity, judgment and wise counsel of the Technocrats in 27 O.A No. 3359/2024 Item 31 (C-3) FSL and the Bureaucrats of GNCT Delhi, their principals.
9. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that 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/