Union of India v. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav

(iv) No order as to costs.”

3.8. The Respondents [in W.P.(C) 13008/2025] had challenged the analogous DANICS (Amendment) Rules, 2022 in O.A.3163/2022. By way of the impugned order dated 16.01.2025, after noting that the facts and circumstances were similar to those in O.A. No. 2808/2022, the learned Tribunal disposed of the said original application in terms of the order passed in O.A. No. 2808/2022.

3.9. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with a reasoned policy decision which was based on inter-ministerial consultations.

5. She submitted that the primary cause of delay in promotion was the existence of two separate crucial dates for reckoning of ‘approved service’ and for determining the eligibility for promotion, and the proposed Amendments cure the said issue and can ensure timely promotion by mitigating delay and without conferring unintended advantage upon DANIPS and DANICS Officers. She submitted that the Amendments are not arbitrary and the same aptly harmonise the crucial date.

6. She submitted that every Central Civil Service is unique in its character and functions, and the learned Tribunal has erred in drawing parallels with different services merely on the ground that recruitment for the said services is being done through same Examination.

7. She submitted that while recruitment to both Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ Central Civil Services are made through the common Civil Services Examination, however, the career prospects and career progression of Group ‘B’ services is significantly different from that of Group ‘A’ services. She submitted that the doctrine of parity cannot be mechanically extended to dissimilar services. She submitted that as per service Rules of other Group ‘A’ Services like IRS (C&CE), IRS(IT), Indian Postal Service, Indian Information Service, etc., there is no concept of ‘approved service’ and promotions are given based on regular service which starts from actual date of joining.

8. She submitted that aligning the date for reckoning ‘approved service’ and the date of determining eligibility for promotion to 1st of January would unduly benefit the DANIPS and DANICS Officers compared to their counterparts in Central Group ‘A’ Services as their promotion is based on regular service.

9. She further submitted that the nature of duties of DANIPS/DANICS and Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service (‘AFHQCS’) posts are entirely different, and the comparison between these two services is unjust. She further submitted that members of DANIPS/ DANICS have an advantage over AFHQCS as they have better career prospects since they are eligible for induction in IPS/IAS.

10. She submitted that it is well-settled that there is no vested right to promotion on a particular date or by a preferred reckoning method, and the employees only have a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the service rules. She submitted that the subject Amendments do not deprive the officers of their right to be considered for promotion and the sole purpose is to simply align commencement of ‘approved service’ with promotion cut-off date.

11. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal in its order dated 23.07.2018 in O.A. No. 3156/2014 had meticulously analysed the prejudice caused by the dual-date system and issued unambiguous directions to MHA and DoPT, despite which, DoPT arbitrarily rejected the proposal to reckon ‘approved service’ from 1st January without any reason. He submitted that the notification of the Amendments are evidently a colourable exercise of power, which is apparent from the fact that DoPT had itself taken a stand in the earlier original application that the date of reckoning should be 1st of January instead of 1st of July.

12. He further submitted that reckoning of ‘approved service’ from 1st of January will not confer any undue advantage on the DANIPS/ DANICS. He submitted that the Petitioner’s argument of promotions in Group ‘A’ services being based on regular service, which is calculated from actual date of joining, is not legally tenable.

13. He submitted that both concepts of regular service and ‘approved service’ include periods where an officer notionally holds a post but for being on leave or unavailable, and the only distinction is that the DANIPS Rules, 2003 and the DANICS Rules, 2003 provide a clear and codified commencement date for reckoning service. He relied on IRS (C&CE) Rules, 2016 to buttress his argument that the source of recruitment, that is the Civil Services Examination, is the common starting point across services- whether referred to as Regular Service in Group 'A' Services, ‘approved service’ in DANICS/DANIPS & AFHQCS, or Allotment Year in All India Services.

14. He submitted that although each service is distinct, the fundamental criteria for reckoning service for the purposes of seniority and promotion cannot be arbitrarily different for cadres whose members are selected through a common examination.

15. He submitted that the concept of ‘approved service’ is a wellestablished legal fiction employed in certain Group ‘B’ services and it served the purpose of ensuring notional seniority and service uniformity. He submitted that the Respondents in either case are not seeking parity with Group ‘A’ services, but rather with analogous Group ‘B’ services like AFHQCS. He submitted that the learned Tribunal drew a valid comparison with AFHQCS, which is an analogous Group ‘B’ service. He submitted that better career prospects or an opportunity for future promotion to a different service cannot be a valid ground to justify discrimination in reckoning of seniority.

16. He submitted that fixation of 1st July as the date of reckoning ‘approved service’ will have a cascading and irreversible career long impact on the members of DANIPS/DANICS cadre, particularly at the crucial stage of their induction into IPS/IAS.

17. He submitted that each officer will suffer a six month reduction in reckoning service if the same is allowed, especially since eligibility criteria for IAS/IPS induction is pegged to be completion of requisite years of service by 31st December of relevant year.

ANALYSIS

18. The foremost argument agitated by the Petitioner is that by directing a change of reckoning date of ‘approved service’, the learned Tribunal has erroneously substituted its own policy preference for that of the competent authority. It is contested that the learned Tribunal has erred in breaching the bounds of judicial review by not just quashing the Amendments, but also directing that ‘approved service’ be reckoned from 1st of January.

19. Thus, before this Court delves into the merits of this case, it is apposite to first take note of the scope of judicial review over administrative or policy decisions.

20. Pertinently, the subject amendments were sought to be made in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be tinkered with merely because the Court finds the same to be unreasonable and the same can only be struck down on grounds upon which a legislative measure can be struck down [Ref. B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana: (1981) S.C. 561 and R.L. Bansal v. Union of India: 1992 Supp (2) SCC 318]. The rule making power under the aforesaid provision is subject to constitutional limitations and it is well-settled that a rule so framed ought not to be interfered with mechanically unless the same can be faulted for being mala fide, perverse, manifestly arbitrary or unfair. The Court/ Tribunal has to exercise restraint and circumspection in substituting its own views as to what is wise or prudent, and the wisdom of the decision itself is not the subject of judicial review.

21. A bare perusal of the impugned orders indicates that the present cases are such where the learned Tribunal has quashed the subject Amendments on finding them to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While the cogency of such interference will be tested in the forthcoming paragraphs, it is imperative to note that the present case is not one where the learned Tribunal has routinely interfered with the Amendments at the first instance. Rather, in the first round of litigation, after making categorical observations in relation to the discriminatory nature of the anomaly of different dates for promotion and reckoning ‘approved service’, the learned Tribunal had disposed of the matter with categorical directions to MHA and DoPT to respectively make an appropriate proposal for harmonising the crucial dates as 1st January and to decide the aforesaid proposal. In the second round of litigation, the learned Tribunal was only weighed to interfere as the MHA’s proposal was found to have been rejected by DoPT without any reason. While the Tribunal ought not ordinarily rewrite policy, however, in the face of a policy that is riddled with arbitrariness and which perpetuates discrimination, it is incumbent on the Tribunal to intervene in the interests of justice specially when the Parent ministry, that is, MHA has specifically proposed the same without contest after examining the issue.

22. Though it was argued otherwise in the first round of litigation, there is no dispute over the fact that the discrepancy in the crucial dates for reckoning of ‘approved service’ and determining eligibility is discriminatory in nature and the same results in delay in promotions of DANIPS/ DANICS officers, due to which, harmonisation is warranted. The same was rightly noted by the learned Tribunal in the first round. Pertinently, the order dated 23.07.2018, which was passed by the learned Tribunal in the first round of litigation, has not been challenged by the Union of India. The delay in promotion caused by the anomaly of two different crucial dates was sought to be cured by way of the impugned Amendments. Thus, the short question before this Court is only as to whether fixation of 1st of July as the date for reckoning of ‘approved service’ and for determining eligibility for promotion rectifies the disadvantage and discrimination that was underlined by the learned Tribunal in order dated 23.07.2018 (in the first round of litigation).

23. To discern the conundrum at hand, it is imperative to appreciate the impact of the quashed amendments with help of illustrations adduced by the Petitioner. Earlier, ‘approved service’ of DANIPS and DANICS was determined from 1st July of the relevant year while eligibility for promotion was determined on 1st January of the year in which the vacancy occurred. As criteria of promotion of DANICS/DANIPS is 8 years of approved service, this mechanism led to delay in promotions of officers of the aforesaid cadres. For example, if an officer belonging to the aforesaid cadres joined service from 01.10.2000, their approved service was counted from 01.07.2000 and they will complete eight years of approved service for promotion on 30.06.2008, but they will be ineligible for vacancies arising in the year 2008 as they would not have completed eight years of approved service on 01.01.2008 (crucial date for determining eligibility for promotion). Such an officer will only be eligible for vacancy year 2009 and will get their first promotion on 01.01.2009 after 8 years and 6 months of approved service instead of 8 years of approved service. The impugned amendments sought to modify the date of determining eligibility for promotion to 1st July of the vacancy year to address the issue of delay in promotions. Continuing the example in the previous paragraph, in terms of the amendments, the officer’s approved service will be reckoned in a similar manner from 01.07.2000 and their eligibility will also be assessed on 01.07.2008 (crucial date for determining eligibility for promotion). It is the Respondents case that other similar services enjoy an extra 6 months of approved service and they gain eligibility 6 months before DANIPS/DANICS, which places the said cadres in a disadvantageous position. By the impugned orders, after quashing the amendments, the learned Tribunal directed to affix 1st January following the year of examination as the crucial date for determining ‘approved service’. If the same is sustained, the officer’s approved service as well as eligibility will be determined from 1st of January, whereby, the officer will be eligible for vacancies in the year 2008 from 01.01.2008 itself. The Union has opposed the same by arguing that such a mechanism would result in the officers of the said cadres being promoted when they would have had 7 years and 3 months of actual service (counted from 01.10.2000, which is considered as the actual date of joining in the example), and this would disturb the relative position between different services.

24. One of the major reasons that persuaded the learned Tribunal to quash the amendments was that the DoPT assigned no cogent reasons for not fixing 1st January as the crucial date for reckoning ‘approved service’.

24.1. Perusal of the record as well as the pleadings of the Petitioner reflects that DoPT had rejected MHA’s 2012 proposal for amendment in the crucial date for determining the eligibility for promotion to 1st July as the general policy was of taking 1st January of the vacancy year for reckoning eligibility for promotion in terms of OM NO. 22011/3/98-Estt.(D) dated 17.09.1998. Despite the same, subsequently, DoPT somersaulted and rejected MHA’s proposal aimed at achieving uniformity by adopting 1st January for DANIPS officers, which creates a palpable contradiction in the stand of DoPT. The same coupled with the fact that DoPT has failed to assign any reason for not agreeing with the MHA’s proposal, which as per DoPT itself would be in conformity with its general policy, ex facie reeks of arbitrariness.

24.2. At the first instance, by order dated 23.07.2018, the learned Tribunal had explicitly noted that the dual date system was causing delay in promotions of DANIPS officers in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, even though, in the matter of grant of Non-Functional Selection grade, 1st January was being considered for both the purposes. It was further noted that members of AFHQCS, which is also a Group ‘B’ service, do not face such disadvantage as in their case, 1st January is the crucial date for determination of eligibility for promotion as well as for counting ‘approved service’. It was further noted that the delay also complicates the matter when such officers get inducted into IPS as their seniority positions vis-à-vis direct recruits gets adversely affected. Undisputedly, the aforesaid findings were never challenged by the Petitioner, and although a proposal for determining 1st January as the crucial date was made without contest by MHA, the same has been rejected by DoPT without considering the aforesaid aspects.

24.3. As rightly noted by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, no proper reason for rejecting the proposal or of deliberation has been produced. Although this Court had also afforded an opportunity to the Petitioner on 22.12.2025 to produce the decision-making process, no such record has been produced to justify as to why the crucial date of eligibility and the date of counting of approved service may be both kept as 1st July of the year. In the absence of any reasons for rejection of the proposal, the learned Tribunal was justified in quashing the impugned Amendments.

25. Secondly, the decision of the learned Tribunal was also helmed on a detailed comparison between other services, wherein it was found that generally 1st of January is fixed as the crucial date for reckoning the length of service as well as for determining eligibility. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 is as under: “5.[3] Comparison with Similar Group 'A' Services: The Indian Civil Accounts Service (Group 'A') Rules, 1997, as notified vide GSR 694(E) dated 05.11.2006, under Schedule II, Note I, stipulates that for promotions to the Senior Time Scale (STS), Junior Administrative Grade (JAG), Selection Grade (Non- Functional) Junior Administrative Grade (NFSG), and Senior Administrative Grade (SAG), the length of service is to be reckoned from 1st January of the year following the year in which the examination was conducted for recruitment.[4] Similarly, the Recruitment Rules of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Services (AFHOCS), 1968, notified on 01.05.2001, define the approved service and specify that the 1st day of January of the year following the year of the examination for direct recruitment shall serve as the timeline to reckon approved service. Further, for the Indian Police Service(IPS) officers appointed through the same Examination, the approved service is reckoned from 1st January, and thus, they score advantage over The Indian Civil Accounts Service (Group ‘A’) Rules, 2025 were notified on 30.05.2025 (suppressing the previous Rules which were referred by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order), and there is no such Note therein for reckoning length of service from the 1st of January following the year of examination. It is however provided that the crucial date for determining eligibility service for promotion to various grades in the service shall be the 1st January of the vacancy year.

SCHEDULE-II (A) of the said Rules, which deals with appointment of officers to Non- Functional Selection Grade (level-13), inter alia stipulates the following minimum qualifying service for placement: “Officers of Junior Administrative Grade in level-12 in the pay matrix (Rs. 78800-209200), who have entered 14th year of service on the 1st January of the year calculated from the year following the year of examination on the basis of which the members were recruited.” the DANIPS officers who lose six months as their approved service is counted from 1st July. Further, for Indian Administrative Service(IAS) officers, the assignment of allotment year is governed by Rule 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules. 1987. The rule states that the "year of allotment" for a direct recruit officer is considered to be the year following the year in which the competitive examination was held. However, as the provision does not specify an exact date for the commencement of the year, guidance is drawn from Section 3(66) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines "year" as a period beginning from the 1st of January. Consequently, for the purpose of calculating approved service, the cut-off date for each year is interpreted as 1st January. Further, Note I below Schedule II of the Recruitment Rules for the Indian Defence Accounts Service, 1958, prescribes that 1st January of the year to which the vacancies pertain shall be considered the crucial date for determining the eligibility of officers for promotions to various grades. The members of the aforementioned Services are recruited through the Civil Services Examination (CSE). Some of these services are Group 'A' and AFHQS is a Group 'B' Service. From the above, it is evident that in other similar Group 'A' Services, where recruitment is through CSE, no separate dates are prescribed for the consideration of eligibility and approved service for promotion. Generally, 1st January is fixed as the crucial date for such purposes. Further, DOPT is consulted while finalizing Recruitment Rules.”

25.1. Much emphasis has now been laid by the Petitioner on the argument that the learned Tribunal has erred in drawing parallels with different services, without appreciating that the career prospects of Group ‘B’ services are significantly different. It is argued that as per service Rules of most Group ‘A’ Services, there is no concept of ‘approved service’ and their promotion is based on regular service, which is the actual service rendered by an officer. The Petitioner has also contested that the nature of duties of AFHQCS and DANIPS/DANICS is fairly distinct, and there can be no comparison between the said services. It is further argued that fixation of 1st of January for calculating ‘approved service’ will confer an unintended advantage of over six months of notional service on DANICS/DANIPS. The Petitioners have contested that fixing date of consideration of eligibility and counting approved service as 1st January will disturb the relative position of the services. It is iterated that the criteria for promotion in the services is different. The same is exhibited through a chart (Pg 27 of W.P.(C) 12877/2025), which is as under:

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                   Sl.    Name of Service      Criteria of Promotion           Eligible date of 1st   │
│                   No.                                                         promotion in case      │
│                                                                               an         applicant   │
│                                                                               appears for CSE-       │
│                                                                               1999 & selected &      │
│                                                                               joins his service in   │
│                                                                               allotted Cadre in      │
│                                                                               October 2000 (Let      │
│                                                                               date of joining        │
│                                                                               01.10.2000 & batch     │
│                                                                               allotted as 2000).     │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                   1.     Indian   Defence     Officers in the Junior Time                            │
│                          Accounts Service     Scale with 4 years regular                             │
│                                                                                1st January 2005      │
│                          (IDAS)    [Group     service in the grade                                   │
│                          ‘A’]                                                                        │
│                   2.     Indian      Civil    Officers in the Junior Time                            │
│                          Accounts Service     Scale in the pay Band-3 of Rs                          │
│                          (ICAS)    [Group     15600- 39100 with Grade Pay      1st January 2005      │
│                          ‘A’]                 of Rs. 5400 with 4 years                               │
│                                               regular service in the grade                           │
│ Signature Not Verified                                                                               │
│ Signed By:HARMINDER                                                                                  │
│ KAUR                                                                                                 │
│                     W.P.(C) 12877/2025 & W.P.(C) 13008/2025                                          │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

26. Fixation of crucial date for reckoning ‘approved service’ as 1st of July will not eliminate discriminatory treatment and it has been rightly noted by the learned Tribunal that the Amendments entrench upon the disparity identified in the first round of litigation and the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once such a benefit of notional service is being extended in promotion to AFHQCS (another Group ‘B’ service), the argument of the Petitioner that fixation of 1st of January as the date of reckoning of approved service would confer undue advantage on the DANICS/DANIPS fails. It is evident that the Amendments had the effect of overriding the observations made by the Tribunal in the first round without curing the underlined deficiencies.

27. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted for interfering with the Amendments in the present circumstances, especially since the Petitioner authorities have failed to establish as to why the proposal for assigning 1st January as the crucial date for reckoning the ‘approved service’ as also for determining the eligibility for promotion was rejected. Once it is apparent that there is arbitrariness and non-application of mind, the Tribunal cannot sit as a mute spectator when the dispute is brought before it.

28. However, while this Court is persuaded to uphold the quashing of the Amendments due to absence of any demonstratable reasoning coupled with the potential prejudice that will be caused to the DANIPS/DANICS, it would not be appropriate to sustain the effective direction to amend the relevant rules by fixing 1st January following the year of examination as the crucial date for determining approved service. Though the learned Tribunal was motivated to pass the direction due to failure of Petitioner authorities to curb the issues underlined in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal should refrain from passing directions for enactment or amendment of rules in a particular manner. The mode and manner of curing the infirmities ought not to be determined by the Tribunal.

29. At the same time, once it was found that the rules in their initial form were discriminatory and the amendments also cannot continue in operation due to the manifest arbitrariness, directions were required to address the resultant administrative vacuum till such time when appropriate amendments are notified in accordance with law.

30. Thus, MHA as well as DoPT are directed to carry out a reasoned exercise and stipulate a mechanism which addresses the issues underlined by this Court as well as the Tribunal without causing any consequent prejudice to the prospects of DANIPS/DANICS. This exercise shall preferably be carried out within a period of two months from date. Till such amendments are passed in accordance with law, as in the case of AFHQCS, it is directed that 1st January following the year of examination shall be treated as the crucial date for determining approved service of DANIPS/ DANICS.

31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with quashing of the Gazette Notifications whereby the impugned Amendments were respectively notified, however, the directions for amendment of the relevant rules are set aside.

32. The present petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

33. A copy of this judgment be placed in both the matters. AMIT MAHAJAN, J. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. JULY 01, 2026 “SS”