Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Pawan Kaul vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 29 April, 2026

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                  $~87
                  *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  +           W.P.(C) 8555/2021 & CM APPL. 27307/2022
                              PAWAN KAUL                                                       .....Petitioner
                                                          Through:            Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv.

                                                          versus

                              DELHI DEVELOPMENT
                              AUTHORITY & ANR.                    .....Respondents
                                           Through: Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay
                                           Singh, Advs. for DDA
                              CORAM:
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
                                                          ORDER

% 29.04.2026

1. We have heard Mr. Mohit Siwach, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Birbal, learned Counsel for the DDA, at some length.

2. The petitioner is an employee of Delhi Development Authority1, holding a post of Junior Secretariat Assistant2. Ascendancy from the post of JSA to the post of Senior Secretariat Assistant3, as per the applicable Recruitment Rules, inter alia takes place via a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination4. The petitioner underwent the LDCE on 28 May 2019 and 9 June 2019. On the basis of his performance in the LDCE, he was made SSA on 24 June 2019. Subsequently, vide order dated 5 October 2020, issued by 1 "DDA" hereinafter 2 "JSA" hereinafter 3 "SSA" hereinafter 4 "LDCE" hereinafter W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:07:06 the DDA, the petitioner was reverted to the post of JSA on the ground that there were criminal proceedings pending against him, consequent on FIR 183/2016 lodged by the petitioner's wife under Section 498A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal5. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's OA on the ground that, once criminal proceedings stood instituted against the petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC, the principles enunciated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman6 would apply and that the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of SSA would have to be placed in a sealed cover.

4. According to the Tribunal, it is only if and when the petitioner stood acquitted in the criminal proceedings that the sealed cover could be opened and his case considered for promotion.

5. We have our doubts regarding the correctness of the view expressed by the Tribunal.

6. Apparently, the petitioner's case was never placed in any sealed cover, as the sealed cover procedure applies only to DPCs and the petitioner had become SSA following an LDCE. As such, we have our doubts as to whether the law in K.V. Jankiraman as well as the DOPT OM dated 14 September 1992 would apply at all.

5 "Tribunal" hereinafter 6 (1991) 4 SCC 109 W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:07:06

7. We may note that, while issuing notice in this case, this Court had observed that even in terms of the OM dated 14 September 1992, the petitioner's case would have to be considered for ad hoc promotion as SSA after two years of his case being placed in a sealed cover. That observation was also made in the light of the DOPT OM dated 14 September 1992, the very applicability of which appears to be doubtful.

8. If this case is not one which involves the sealed cover procedure, we may have to remand this matter to the Tribunal for a consideration afresh keeping in view the applicable law. However, before doing so, we deem it appropriate to grant Mr. Birbal an opportunity to address the Court on this aspect.

9. We have therefore called upon to Mr. Birbal to answer as to how the order dated 5 October 2020 which withdrew the appointment of the petitioner as SSA could be sustained at all as it was based on the DOPT OM dated 14 September 2014 which prima facie does not apply to LDCEs.

10. Re-notify on 5 May 2026 as part heard for disposal in the supplementary list.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

APRIL 29, 2026/AR W.P.(C) 8555/2021 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 21:07:06