Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bijender Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 24 March, 2026
OA No.610-2016
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.610/2016
Order reserved on 12.03.2026
Order pronounced on 24.03.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. Bijender Singh
S/o Sh. Randhir Singh,
R/o V.P.O. Nahra,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
(Aged about 48 years)
2. Amresh Pal
S/o Sh. Umar Pal Singh
R/o A-2, Fire Station Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-15.
(Aged about 52 years)
3. Satyavir,
S/o Sh. Ved Ram
R/o C-11, HQ Delhi Fire Service,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-1.
(Aged about 56 years)
4. Ravinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Zile Singh,
R/o RZ 97A, Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
(Aged about 52 years)
5. Sunder Sehrawat
S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Sehrawat,
R/o Village Badusaria,
P.O. Chawla,
New Delhi-110071.
(Aged about 55 years)
6. Hawa Singh
S/o Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Village Jindpur,
V.P.O. Ali Pur, Delhi -36.
(Aged about 49 years)
JUGAL JUGAL
KISHORE
KISHO 2026.03.25
14:35:53
RE +05'30'
OA No.610-2016
2
7. Vijay Singh
S/o Sh. Ratan Singh
R/o H.No.453, V.P.O Bankner,
Delhi-40
(Aged about 56 years)
8. Dev Prakash
S/o Sh. Permanand Arya
R/o H.No.462, V.P.O. Bankner,
Delhi-40.
(Aged about 54 years)
(Firemen, Leading Firemen & Sub Officers)
......Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
A-Wing, 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate.
2. The Principal Secretary,
GNCT of Delhi
(Home)
5th Floor 'C' Wing Secretariat
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
3. Delhi Fire Services,
Through its Director,
Delhi Fire Service Head Quarters,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the instant OA, the applicants seek the following relief:-
"(i) Direct the respondents to apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:35:53 RE +05'30' OA No.610-2016 3 dated 19.10.2006 in WP(C) No. 61/2002 (along with connected cases) titled M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (reported as AIR 2007 SC 71) in the cadre/hierarchy of posts of Fireman, Leading Fireman, Sub-Officers and Station Officers w.e.f. the date of issue of the aforesaid judgment, with all consequences which may include review of illegal and unconstitutional DPCs/promotions, reversions to the said posts.
(ii) Award costs of the proceedings and
(iii) 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 applicants."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:-
2.1 The applicant No.1 (Bijender Singh) was appointed as a Fireman in the year 1992 (53 Batch) . The applicant Nos.2-6 (Amresh, Satyavir Singh, Ravinder, Sunder Sehrawat and Hawa Singh) were appointed as Fireman on 12.11.1990, 1.6.1984, 1.9.1988, 26.12.1985 and 12.11.1990 respectively.
2.2 Consequent to their promotion as Leading Fireman w.e.f.
29.04.2014, they are presently working on the said post. The applicants No. 7-8 (Vijay Singh and Dev Prakash) were appointed as Fireman in the years 1980 and 1983 respectively. 2.3 Both were promoted as Leading Fireman in February 2005 and as Sub-Officer in March 2012. In the cadre of Fireman, the next post on promotion is Leading Fireman. A Leading Fireman is JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:35:53 RE +05'30' OA No.610-2016 4 entitled to promotion to the post of Sub-Officer and a Sub-Officer is entitled to be promoted as Station Officer. 2.4 All the applicants belong to the unreserved class. The respondents, while making direct recruitment, applied the reservation policy of the Government, and caste-based reservations were admitted to the reserved category. Besides the application of reservation policy at the time of initial appointment, the respondents have also been applying their reservation policy and thus providing special concession by way of earmarking posts for the reserved class in the promotional process, due to which the reserved class candidates have been stealing a march over the unreserved class (to which the applicants belong). It is relevant to point out here that vide judgment dated 19.10.2006 in M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the State undertakes a fresh exercise and collects data identifying the classes requiring reservation in the matter of promotion and also the extent thereof, no reservation shall be admissible in promotion.
2.5 The applicants are also aggrieved by the facts that the mandate of M. Nagaraj (supra) has not been followed. It has been further submitted in para 4.11 as under:-
"That various DPCs have been held by the respondents in the interregnum in complete violation of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including DPCs held on 3.3.2011, 30.12.2014, 28.3.2008, 29.4.2010 (where ST/reserve class Fireman were promoted as JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:35:53 RE +05'30' OA No.610-2016 5 Leading Fireman), 4.1.2014, 6.1.2014 (where reserved class Leading Fireman were promoted as Sub-Officer) and on 21.7.2006, 23.7.2012 (where reserve class sub-officer have been promoted as Station Officer) which require a review."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. It has been contended that the present OA is barred by limitation.
3.1 It has been averred on the behalf of the respondents that the applicants have in the present OA based their claim on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the M. Nagaraj case (supra), which was delivered on 19.10.2006. The present OA has been filed on 02.02.2016, i.e., after more than 9½ years of the issuance of the said directions. The cause of action, if any, to seek the relief as claimed in this OA first arose only on 19.10.2006; as such, this OA could have been filed latest by 18.10.2007. Therefore, the present OA is not maintainable under the provisions of the AT Act, 1985 and deserves to be dismissed.
3.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present OA is bad for non-joinder of parties. It is DOP&T which is responsible for the issuance of instructions and guidelines for the DPC, which are followed by the answering respondent. DOP&T has not been made a party by the applicants, whereas it is the most relevant and proper party in the present OA. Therefore, this OA is liable to be dismissed on this account as well.
JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:35:53 RE +05'30' OA No.610-2016 6
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. Analysis 5.1 Much water has been shed pursuant to the decision rendered in M. Nagaraj and others versus Union of India and others, which has resulted in the decision rendered in Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2022- Jarnail Singh and others versus Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others.
5.2 The key issue that was identified and decided in M. Nagaraj (supra) is whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Article 16(4) and Article 335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting in Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B). The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments. The amendments were held to be enabling provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion. However, if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of India. 5.3 Based on the decision of M. Nagaraj, the Hon'ble Apex Court identified the following issues in Jarnail Singh & Ors. Versus Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. in CA No.629/2022:-
JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:35:53 RE +05'30' OA No.610-2016 7 "When the matter was listed for hearing on 14.09.2021, it was made clear that this Court would not entertain any arguments for reconsideration of the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra), as a Constitution Bench in Jarnail Singh (supra) had rejected such a request. The Court was informed that the cases in this batch of matters can be bifurcated into eleven categories. As the common issues that have been raised could be decided without reference to the facts of each case, the learned counsel appearing for the parties were requested to make submissions on the issues that had been identified by the learned Attorney General. After considering the issues identified by the learned Attorney General and other learned counsel and hearing them, the following six points are formulated for determination:-
1) What is the yardstick by which, according to M. Nagaraj (supra), one would arrive at quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment?
2) What is the unit with respect to which quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation is required to be collected?
2) Whether the proportion of the population of SCs and STs to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts for the purposes of Article 16(4-A)?
4) Should there be a time period for reviewing inadequacy of representation?
5) Whether the judgment in M. Nagaraj (supra) can be said to operate prospectively?
6) Whether quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation can be collected on the basis of sampling methods, as held by this Court in B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. ("B.K. Pavitra II")?"
5.4 In Jarnail Singh (supra) para 42, the following observation was made by the Apex Court.
"This Court in Golak Nath (supra) and Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra), referred to above, has laid down that Article 142 JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:35:53 RE +05'30' OA No.610-2016 8 empowers this Court to mould the relief to do complete justice. To conclude this point, the purpose of holding that M. Nagaraj (supra) would have prospective effect is only to avoid chaos and confusion that would ensue from its retrospective operation, as it would have a debilitating effect on a very large number of employees, who may have availed of reservation in promotions without there being strict compliance with the conditions prescribed in M. Nagaraj (supra). Most of them would have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judgment of M. Nagaraj (supra) was delivered in 2006, interpreting Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution which came into force in 1995. As making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have the effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time, it is necessary that the judgment of M. Nagaraj (supra) should be declared to have prospective effect."
Further in Para 45, 46, and 47 read as under:-
45. Collection of quantifiable data for determining the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs is a basic requirement for providing reservation in promotions, as laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra). The unit for the purpose of collection of data is a cadre, according to M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra). For the purpose of collection of quantifiable data for providing reservation in promotions, the entire service cannot be taken to be a unit and treated as a cadre, as already stated. The structure of services in the State of Karnataka is along the same lines as that of services in the Central Government. Services are divided into 'groups', which are further bifurcated into cadres. There is no confusion that a cadre is not synonymous with a 'group'.
46. The first term of reference for the Ratna Prabha Committee was to collect data cadre-wise. The conclusion of this Court in B.K. Pavitra II (supra) that the expression 'cadre' has no fixed meaning in service jurisprudence is contrary to the judgments of this Court, which have been referred to above while answering point
2. In clear terms, M. Nagaraj (supra) held that the unit for collection of quantifiable data is cadre, and not services, JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:35:53 RE +05'30' OA No.610-2016 9 as has been held in B.K. Pavitra II (supra). Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution enables the State to make reservation in promotions for SCs and STs, which are not adequately represented in the services of the State. However, the provision for reservation in matters of promotion is with reference to class or classes of posts in the services under the State. That 'groups' consist of cadres is a fact which was taken into consideration by this Court in B.K. Pavitra II (supra). The conclusion that the collection of data on the basis of 'groups' is valid is contrary to the decisions of this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra).
47. The State should justify reservation in promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made. Taking into account the data pertaining to a 'group', which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made.
Rosters are prepared cadre-wise and not group-wise. The sampling method which was adopted by the Ratna Prabha Committee might be a statistical formula appropriate for the collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a 'group', is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre. Therefore, we hold that the conclusion of this Court in B.K. Pavitra II (supra) approving the collection of data on the basis of 'groups' and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra).
6. CONCLUSION In view of the above, the relief(s) sought in the present matter ought to be guided by the observations made in Jarnail Singh (supra). The ratio of dictum in Jarnail Singh (supra) ought to be followed in letter and spirit. If any individual is aggrieved by discrimination in the matter of reservation in promotion or JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHO 2026.03.25 14:35:53 RE +05'30' OA No.610-2016 10 promotion itself, it is already noted that M. Nagaraj (supra) has a prospective application; therefore, no relief can be granted in the present matter in light of relief(s) sought. The applicants are always at liberty to agitate their individual grievances in accordance with law, if they are still so aggrieved. The OA is disposed of.
7. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jk/
JUGAL JUGAL
KISHORE
KISHO 2026.03.25
14:35:53
RE +05'30'