Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yogesh Kumar Verma vs Govt. Of Nctd on 18 November, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.369/2020
Reserved on: 14.10.2025
Pronounced on: 18.11.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Yogesh Kumar Verma,
Working as Assistant Electrical Inspector, Grp.B,
S/o Shri R.D. Verma,
Age 39 years,
R/o Y-4/905, Ganga Yamuna Hindon Apartment,
Sector-7, Siddhartha Vihar, Ghaziabad-201010
- Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Puneet Rathi)
Versus
1. Lieutenant Governor,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Raj Bhawan, New Delhi-110054
2. Government of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Sachivalaya, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110 002
3. Secretary-cum-Commissioner,
Labour Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
5, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi-110054
4. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110 011
5. Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Shri Dori Lal Sharma,
R/o C-110, Suraj Mal Vihar,
New Delhi-110092 - Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. HA Khan, Anurag Sigh Tomar with Sh. D.S.
Chaudhary)
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
The present Original Application has been instituted by the Applicant, an employee of the Respondents' department, assailing the legality of the revised reservation roster notified on 16.12.2019, the consequential seniority list issued on 08.01.2020 (Annexure A), and the promotion order dated 22.07.2020 (Annexure B) whereby a roster point earmarked for the Scheduled Caste category was allegedly diverted to a general-category officer (Private Respondent No. 5).
2. The Applicant prays for quashing of the said orders, restoration of the 2013 roster (Annexure C) which had been duly operated in his favour, and consequential promotion to the post of Deputy Electrical Inspector from the date of his in- charge placement, with arrears and seniority.
3. It is averred that the Applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and entered service as Junior Engineer on _ (date). He earned promotions in due course and was functioning as In-charge Assistant Electrical Inspector when the department prepared a post-based reservation roster on 13.03.2013 (Annexure C). As per that roster, Point No. 7 was reserved for SC.
4. According to the Applicant, the 2013 roster was duly approved by the competent authority and acted upon. He was placed against the SC point and performed duties of the higher post without break.
3
5. The grievance arose when, after nearly six years, the Respondents initiated a "vetting" exercise of old rosters. Acting on an internal note of the Liaison Officer for SC/ST (Annexure D), the department prepared a revised roster dated 16.12.2019, declaring certain earlier entries "incorrect" and reallocating the SC point.
6. On the basis of that revised roster, the Respondents issued a final seniority list on 08.01.2020 placing Private Respondent No. 5 above the Applicant. Subsequently, a promotion order dated 22.07.2020 elevated the said private respondent as Deputy Electrical Inspector, ignoring the Applicant's claim to the SC roster point.
7. The Applicant immediately submitted representations (Annexures E & F) objecting to the disturbance of an operated roster. Receiving no redress, he approached this Tribunal by the present OA seeking following reliefs:-
a. To quash and set aside the impugned revised reservation roster dated 16 December 2019, the final seniority list dated 08 January 2020, and the promotion order dated 22 July 2020 issued by the Respondents, whereby the SC roster point was altered to his detriment; b. To declare that the roster circulated vide memorandum dated 13 March 2013 (Annexure-C) was validly operated and continues to govern the cadre; c. To direct the Respondents to promote and regularise the Applicant to the post of Deputy Electrical Inspector (or equivalent) against the SC roster point from the date of his in-charge placement, with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation, and arrears; d. To restrain the Respondents from giving effect to or acting upon the impugned revised roster and promotion order during the pendency of this OA; and 4 e. To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.
8. In their written reply, the official Respondents raise preliminary objections of limitation, laches and maintainability, contending that the roster of 2013 was provisional and subject to vetting; therefore, the OA filed in 2020 is barred by time.
9. They assert that the revision of the roster was carried out pursuant to directions of the Liaison Officer and the Department of Personnel & Training to ensure correctness of post-based reservation registers. It is pleaded that a discrepancy was found: certain roster points were wrongly earmarked in 2013 and had to be rectified in 2019.
10. The Respondents claim that the Applicant's placement as In-charge Assistant Electrical Inspector was purely ad hoc and conferred no vested right to promotion. According to them, the Applicant never held the regular post and hence could not claim seniority from that placement.
11. They further contend that the promotion of Private Respondent No. 5 was based on seniority-cum-fitness in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and recommendations of a duly constituted DPC held on 14.07.2020.
12. The Respondents submit that the DPC considered all eligible officers within the zone of consideration and found Private Respondent No. 5 fit for promotion against the vacancy year 2019-20, whereas the Applicant lacked the prescribed qualifying service on the relevant date.
5
13. They emphasise that no roster point reserved for SC was denied to a qualified candidate; rather, the correction ensured true reflection of category-wise distribution as per DoPT O.Ms dated 02.07.1997 and 19.01.2017.
14. It is also pleaded that the 2013 roster had never been formally approved by the competent authority, hence its entries were tentative. The revision of 2019 amounts to mere administrative rectification, not retrospective disturbance.
15. The Respondents rely on departmental circulars (Annexure R-1 to R-4) and minutes of the DPC (Annexure R-5) to justify their actions. They contend that all promotions were made "subject to outcome of pending representations" and that the Applicant suffers no irreparable prejudice.
16. On merits, the Respondents deny violation of Article 16(4A) or 335. They argue that efficiency of administration demanded immediate filling of the post to meet functional exigencies, which cannot be labelled arbitrary.
17. They add that the Applicant's representations were duly examined and replied to vide letter dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure R-6) explaining that his claim could not be accepted as the revised roster had been approved at higher level.
18. The Respondents therefore pray for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merit and barred by delay, asserting that the impugned actions are intra vires and in conformity with the reservation policy and DPC procedure.
6
19. Private Respondent No. 5 has filed a separate counter- affidavit adopting the stand of the official Respondents. He submits that his promotion was made on the basis of seniority and that the Applicant's inclusion in the earlier roster was erroneous.
20. He states that he had already completed the qualifying service of eight years as Assistant Electrical Inspector and had cleared departmental tests, whereas the Applicant had not. He denies any mala fide or manipulation on his part and asserts that he has been validly promoted and has been functioning on the post since 22.07.2020.
21. In his rejoinder, the Applicant refutes each preliminary objection raised by the Respondents and reiterates that the OA challenges a continuing wrong; hence, limitation does not arise. He points out that the impugned roster of 2019 and the promotion order of July 2020 created a fresh cause of action.
22. The Applicant maintains that the roster circulated in 2013 (Annexure C) had been approved by the competent authority and acted upon for more than six years without objection. During that period, promotions and seniorities were determined on its basis; therefore, the Respondents are estopped from revisiting it retrospectively.
23. He asserts that the so-called "vetting" was only a device to deprive him of a validly operated SC roster point. No irregularity or illegality was ever recorded contemporaneously in 2013 or thereafter until he became due for regular promotion. 7
24. The Applicant avers that the Liaison Officer's note relied on by the Respondents (Annexure D) nowhere recommended withdrawal of the SC slot already operated. It merely advised reconciliation of total strength figures. The Respondents, however, treated it as authority to alter the distribution of roster points.
25. It is further stated that the Respondents never circulated the proposed revised roster for objections before finalisation; thus, principles of natural justice and transparency were violated.
26. On the plea of lack of qualifying service, the Applicant points to departmental orders granting him in-charge promotion on 05.04.2015 and continuing officiation till 2020. He argues that such long officiation must be counted for experience and that he fully satisfied eligibility under the relevant recruitment rules.
27. The Applicant also relies upon comparative instances where similarly placed SC officers (e.g., in OA No. 169/2023 and OA No. 1171/2020 decided by CAT Jammu Bench) were granted relief on identical facts, the Tribunal having held that "once a roster is operated and promotions made, the same cannot be reopened after lapse of years to deprive an incumbent of his due position."
28. He submits that the impugned actions violate Articles 14, 16(1) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution and run contrary to the settled law in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 8 745; Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242; B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212; and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396.
29. The Applicant argues that efficiency in administration, contemplated by Article 335, cannot be invoked as a ground to undo legitimate reservation benefits, and that uncertainty caused by unsettled rosters is itself detrimental to efficiency.
30. The rejoinder concludes that the revision of 2019 and all consequential orders are liable to be quashed, restoring the 2013 roster and the Applicant's position thereunder.
31. On the basis of the pleadings and submissions, the following issues arise for adjudication:
(i) Whether the Respondents were justified in revising the 2013 roster after six years and reallocating the SC point, thereby displacing the Applicant.
(ii) Whether such revision and the consequent promotion of the Private Respondent amount to impermissible retrospective disturbance of a settled roster contrary to R.K. Sabharwal and allied precedents.
(iii) Whether the Applicant's in-charge placement and continuous officiation confer a legitimate expectation or right to regular promotion on the reserved roster point. 9
(iv) Whether the plea of limitation or lack of qualifying service bars the Applicant's claim.
(v) What consequential reliefs, if any, the Applicant is entitled to.
32. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 extends to examining whether administrative actions are arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to settled law. In matters of promotion and roster implementation, the Tribunal does not act as an appellate authority over the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), but can intervene where the procedure adopted is vitiated by illegality or violation of constitutional and statutory norms.
33. The central grievance of the Applicant is not against assessment of merit by the DPC, but against the foundation on which that assessment rested--namely, the revised roster of 16.12.2019, which altered an earlier operated SC point. Thus, the controversy lies in the domain of legality of roster revision, not DPC evaluation.
34. The legal position concerning the sanctity of reservation rosters stands settled beyond cavil through a series of authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
35. R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 In R.K. Sabharwal, a Constitution Bench held that a post-based roster is a "running account" and not a device to be re-opened at will. The Court observed:
10
"The roster points are intended to ensure that the prescribed percentage of reservation is maintained in appointments to the cadre. Once a reserved point is filled by a candidate belonging to the reserved category and the appointee continues in service, the post shall be treated as filled and shall not again be subject to reservation. The roster, once operated, should not be unsettled so as to alter the position retrospectively."
36. The principle emerging is that, once a roster point is operated, the corresponding appointment acquires finality; retrospective tinkering would violate Articles 14 and 16.
37. Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242 In Pushpa Rani, the Apex Court reiterated that settled rosters cannot be modified belatedly to the detriment of any category:
"Once a roster has been settled and implemented, it cannot be reopened to deprive a person of his or her legitimate due on the plea of error or misinterpretation after a long lapse of time."
38. The Court emphasized administrative finality and held that reworking rosters long after they have been acted upon undermines certainty and equality.
39. B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129 In B.K. Pavitra (II), the Supreme Court invalidated retrospective interference with operated rosters, holding that reserved candidates cannot be deprived of vested benefits:
"Reservation rosters, once applied and promotions made, cannot be reopened to the prejudice of those who have already gained seniority. Administrative review must operate prospectively."
40. The decision reinforces that fairness demands protecting settled expectations under an operated roster. 11
41. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 The Nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney upheld the concept of reservation as a facet of equality but warned against arbitrariness in implementation. The judgment underlines that equality is dynamic, and any manipulation of policy to the detriment of reserved or unreserved groups alike would breach Article 14.
42. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 In M. Nagaraj, the Constitution Bench clarified that Article 16(4A) empowers the State to provide reservation in promotion, but the exercise must be backed by quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation and consistency with efficiency of administration. The Court warned that "efficiency" cannot be used as a cloak to negate reservation, but the policy must remain within constitutional balance.
43. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 The Constitution Bench in Jarnail Singh slightly modified M. Nagaraj by removing the requirement of collecting quantifiable data on backwardness, but reiterated that once rosters are settled and promotions made, they cannot be arbitrarily disturbed. The Court held:
"Settled rosters cannot be reopened on grounds extraneous to constitutional requirements. Administrative stability and fairness demand that rosters, once operated, remain undisturbed save for valid statutory reasons."12
44. Applying the above settled principles, this Tribunal finds that the Respondents' act of revising the 2013 roster after a lapse of six years and reallocating the SC point to another slot constitutes impermissible retrospective disturbance of an operated roster.
45. The Respondents' plea that the 2013 roster was "provisional" is unsupported by record. No document was produced to show that it carried any such disclaimer or that the Applicant was informed of a pending review. On the contrary, the Applicant continued on the in-charge post for over five years, during which the department itself made promotions and postings based on the same roster.
46. The so-called "vetting" by the Liaison Officer (Annexure D) was a routine audit exercise to verify the overall number of SC/ST posts in the cadre. It did not recommend any reallocation of specific roster points. Hence, the Respondents' interpretation of that note as authority to disturb an operated point is misconceived.
47. The Respondents' contention that the 2013 roster lacked "formal approval" is equally untenable. The very fact that appointments and postings were made on its basis demonstrates administrative approval by conduct. In service law, long, unchallenged operation confers legitimacy unless specifically revoked by competent order.
48. The promotion of the Private Respondent on 22.07.2020 (Annexure G) is a direct consequence of the revised roster. 13 Since the revision itself is illegal, the promotion order built upon it cannot stand.
49. The Respondents' reliance on "seniority-cum-fitness"
principle is misplaced; that criterion operates only after determining eligibility within the correct roster point. When the underlying roster is flawed, subsequent DPC assessment loses legal validity.
50. The plea of limitation fails because the wrong complained of is continuing. The Applicant's exclusion from the SC point continues to affect his service rights each day. Numerous decisions (including Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648) recognize that a continuing wrong keeps the cause of action alive for service benefits.
51. The plea of lack of qualifying service is also unsustainable. The Applicant's long officiation as in-charge since 2015 counts toward experience, as held in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary Association, (2000) 8 SCC 4, where the Court held that continuous officiation in a higher post cannot be ignored when computing eligibility.
52. The Respondents' invocation of efficiency under Article 335 cannot legitimize arbitrary deprivation. As observed in M. Nagaraj, efficiency must co-exist with equality; administrative convenience cannot override constitutional rights.
53. This Tribunal notes with approval the reasoning adopted by the CAT Jammu Bench in OA No. 169 of 2023 (Satish 14 Chander v. UT of J&K) . There, the Bench quashed the departmental circular that had directed keeping reserved- category slots vacant and ordered that the roster points already operated be treated as final. The operative portion reads in substance: "Once the roster has been operated it cannot be reopened; the impugned circular is quashed to that extent and the applicants shall be considered for promotion/regularisation with consequential benefits." The Bench directed completion of that exercise within eight weeks.
54. Likewise, in OA No. 1171 of 2020 (Rajeev Thappa & Ors. v. UT of J&K)  the same Bench allowed the application, quashing the tentative seniority list and the impugned promotion orders that had granted notional anterior dates to certain private respondents. The operative order directed that "each applicant's promotion shall take effect from the date he has been formally put in charge," that a fresh seniority list be issued accordingly, and that consequential service benefits be granted within eight weeks.
55. The CAT Srinagar Bench in OA No. 1777 of 2021 (Khursheed Ahmad Bader v. UT of J&K & Ors.)  examined similar circular instructions that required keeping reserved posts vacant. The operative portion held: "The impugned circular is quashed insofar as it directs keeping slots meant for reserved categories vacant; respondents shall consider the applicants for promotion/regularisation against those roster points with all consequential benefits within the prescribed 15 time." The Bench thus reaffirmed that Article 16(4A) applies fully to promotions and that retrospective curtailment of roster entitlements is unconstitutional.
56. The parity between those decisions and the case at hand is unmistakable. In each instance, the Tribunal intervened to protect an SC/ST officer whose roster entitlement had been neutralised by belated administrative correction. Judicial consistency requires a like result here. The Applicant's claim stands on identical legal footing, and the relief granted must correspond.
57. From the above discussion, the Tribunal records the following findings:
1. The 2013 roster (Annexure C) was validly operated and created enforceable rights in favour of the Applicant.
2. The revised roster of 16.12.2019 is arbitrary, lacks legal sanction, and violates the principles laid down in R.K. Sabharwal and subsequent judgments.
3. The promotion order dated 22.07.2020 based on the revised roster is unsustainable.
4. The Applicant is entitled to be considered promoted/regularized from the date of his in-charge placement with all consequential benefits.
5. The Respondents' objections regarding limitation, eligibility, and efficiency are rejected. 16
58. In view of the findings recorded above, the impugned roster revision dated 16.12.2019 and all consequential administrative actions cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The department acted in violation of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 and the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal.
59. The settled principle, reaffirmed repeatedly from R.K. Sabharwal to B.K. Pavitra, is that once a roster point has been operated, its occupancy attains finality. Any retrospective disturbance creates chaos, uncertainty and injustice. The Respondents' decision to reopen a six-year-old roster solely to alter an already operated SC point is therefore declared illegal, arbitrary and void ab initio.
60. The Tribunal further observes that internal communications such as liaison-officer notes cannot override constitutional protections. The department was duty-bound to place reasons on record and to consult the affected officer before altering his roster entitlement; its failure amounts to violation of natural justice.
61. The plea that the 2013 roster was "tentative" or "unapproved" is an afterthought. For six years the Respondents themselves treated it as valid and effected postings and promotions on its basis. Administrative conduct over such a period crystallizes legitimacy.
62. The Tribunal also holds that an employee continuously officiating on a higher post for years under a valid roster 17 acquires a legitimate expectation to be considered for regular promotion when the vacancy arises. To deny that expectation by retrospective re-engineering of the roster is impermissible.
63. Efficiency of administration, invoked under Article 335, cannot be used as a shield to defeat equality. True efficiency lies in certainty, discipline and fairness; unsettling rosters after years breeds confusion and demoralization.
64. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed in the following terms :
(i) The revised reservation roster dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure E) is quashed and set aside to the extent it disturbs the SC roster point earlier operated in favour of the Applicant;
(ii) The final seniority list dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure F) and the promotion order dated 22.07.2020 (Annexure G) are declared void and inoperative insofar as they prejudice the Applicant's position.
(iii) The Respondents are directed to restore the 2013 roster (Annexure C) and to treat the Applicant as having been promoted/regularised on the post of Deputy Electrical Inspector (or its equivalent) against the SC roster point from the date of his in-charge placement on 05.04.2015 or from such date as may be found applicable on verification of records. 18
(iv) The Applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including seniority, notional fixation of pay, arrears, and counting of service for further promotions.
(v) If, pursuant to the impugned orders, any private respondent has been promoted to the same or equivalent post, the Respondents shall re-adjust the seniority in accordance with this order. No recovery of salary already drawn by such officers shall, however, be made.
(vi) The entire exercise shall be completed within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
65. The Tribunal deems it necessary to observe that reservation rosters are foundational documents for equality in public employment. They must be prepared with meticulous care, updated prospectively, and preserved as permanent records. Any review must be transparent, supported by written reasons, and carried out only with prior approval of the competent authority.
66. For the reasons recorded above, the Original Application succeeds. The impugned orders are quashed, and the Respondents shall grant the Applicant the reliefs indicated hereinbefore.
68. No costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member (J) /lg/