Delhi High Court - Orders
Rakesh Kumar Arora & Ors vs The Ministry Of External Affairs & Ors on 7 April, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4282/2021
RAKESH KUMAR ARORA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Shreyansh Singhvi, Adv.
Versus
THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr.Harish V Shankar, Mr.Amit
Gupta,Mr.Vinay Yadav, Mr.Akshay
Gadeock, Mr.Sahaj Garg, Mr.R.
Venkat Prabhat, Advs. for UOI
Mr.Naresh Kaushik and Mr.Anand
Singh, Advs. for UPSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 07.04.2021 CM No. 13034/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4282/2021
3. The petition impugns the order dated 18th February, 2021 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi of dismissal of O.A. No. 987/2020 preferred by the petitioners along with two others.
4. The petitioners, being the promotee Under-Secretaries of Indian Foreign Service (IFS), filed the O.A. aforesaid impugning sub note (2) of Note 1 in Schedule III and Rule 11(4) of the Indian Foreign Service W.P.(C) 4282/2021 page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MEENAKSHI PANT Signing Date:09.04.2021 15:23:14 (Recruitment, Cadre, Seniority and Promotion) Rules, 2020 which substituted the Indian Foreign Service (Recruitment, Cadre, Seniority and Promotion) Rules, 1961 as well as the order dated 27th April, 2020 of the respondent no.1 Ministry of External Affairs framing guidelines for appointment/promotion in IFS. It was inter alia the contention of the petitioners, that the aforesaid Rules and guidelines affected the chances of promotion of the petitioners.
5. CAT, in paragraph 24 of the impugned order, has inter alia reasoned that since the respondents in their counter affidavit had pleaded that those who had already been assigned the years of allotment, viz. 2003 or 2008, as the case may be, would not be affected and the changes in the Rule would affect only those who are yet to be promoted to the senior scale, the apprehension of the petitioners was misplaced and the petitioners thus do not have the cause of action.
6. We have at the outset only enquired so from the counsel for the petitioners.
7. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to page 368 of the file and has contended that one of the petitioners, namely Rakesh Kumar Arora, has already been affected by the new Rules notwithstanding what was stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before the CAT and thus the petitioners do have a cause of action.
8. The Additional Solicitor General, appearing on advance notice, on enquiry states that the brief was received late and instructions could not be obtained.
W.P.(C) 4282/2021 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MEENAKSHI PANT Signing Date:09.04.2021 15:23:14 9. List on 11th May, 2021.
10. At this stage, it is suggested that notice be issued.
11. Issue notice.
12. Notice is accepted by the counsels appearing for the respondents.
13. List, as already ordered.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J APRIL 7, 2021 SU..
W.P.(C) 4282/2021 page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MEENAKSHI PANT Signing Date:09.04.2021 15:23:14