The Delhi High Court has upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order dismissing a petition by a Delhi Fire Service (DFS) officer. The petitioner challenged the seniority list and the direct appointment of two Divisional Officers (Fire), alleging they did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Division Bench ruled that the petitioner had previously abandoned his challenge to the seniority list and that his challenge to the appointments was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sumesh Kumar Dua, joined the Delhi Fire Service (DFS) as a Sub-Officer in 1991 and was eventually promoted to the post of Divisional Officer (Fire) on July 29, 2013. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 joined as Sub-Officers in 1993, were promoted to Assistant Divisional Officers (ADO) in March 2013, and were subsequently appointed directly through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as Divisional Officers (Fire) on September 2, 2013.
A final seniority list issued on February 17, 2016, placed the petitioner below Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed Original Application (O.A.) No. 1614/2016 before the CAT on May 5, 2016, seeking to quash the seniority list and the appointment orders of the two respondents. The CAT dismissed the O.A. on May 30, 2018, finding no mala fide or arbitrariness in the selection process, which prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: The petitioner argued that the seniority list was arbitrary. He contended that the recruitment year for the direct recruits should be considered 2013, which coincided with his promotion year, thereby entitling him to seniority through the rotation of quota. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the eligibility of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, arguing that their prior experience in the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) did not qualify as experience in an organized Fire Organization with the statutorily required Grade Pay of Rs. 5400, thus violating the Recruitment Rules.
Respondents 1 to 4 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Submissions: The official respondents maintained that the appointments were strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and UPSC recommendations. They stated the seniority was determined based on the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated March 4, 2014, following the Supreme Court judgment in N.R. Parmar v. Union of India. They also argued that the challenge to the 2013 appointments was barred by limitation as it was filed in 2016.
Respondents 5 & 6 Submissions: The directly recruited officers argued that the Original Application suffered from a plurality of reliefs and was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals (AT) Act. They pointed out that during a previous High Court hearing on May 22, 2019, the petitioner had explicitly dropped the challenge to the seniority list, narrowing the scope of the petition solely to the issue of eligibility.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain carefully examined the preliminary objections and the procedural history of the writ petition.
The Court heavily relied on its own coordinate bench order dated May 22, 2019. The Court observed that during that hearing, the petitioner’s counsel had made a “categorical statement” that the findings of the Tribunal regarding seniority (covered by the N.R. Parmar decision) were not being challenged. The Court noted:
“Once the Petitioner chose not to assail the findings of the Tribunal with respect to the seniority list, and the Court proceeded to issue notice limited to the issue of eligibility, the Petitioner cannot now be permitted to widen the ambit of challenge beyond what was expressly preserved.”
Addressing the issue of limitation regarding the challenge to the appointments, the Court analyzed Section 21 of the AT Act, which mandates a one-year limitation period. The Court observed that the appointments were made on September 2, 2013, but the O.A. was filed nearly three years later on May 5, 2016.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the cause of action accrued upon the issuance of the 2016 seniority list, observing:
“The limitation for questioning the foundational act of appointment cannot be extended by reference to a later consequential administrative action.”
Furthermore, addressing the petitioner’s claim that his representations against the selection were pending, the Court stated:
“Mere pendency of representations, however, does not arrest the running of limitation unless the statute so provides. Section 21 does not contemplate indefinite extension of time on account of pending representations.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that no grounds were made out for interference with the impugned CAT order. The Court held that the challenge to the seniority list was foreclosed due to the petitioner’s statement recorded on May 22, 2019, and the challenge to the appointments was barred by the prescribed period of limitation under Section 21 of the AT Act. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition along with all pending applications.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sumesh Kumar Dua vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
- Case Number: W.P. (C) 5620/2019, CM APPL. 61438/2025 & CM APPL. 67327/2025
- Coram: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain
- Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Gauri Puri, Ms. Meherunissa Anand, Mr. Abeer, and Mr. Kashish Bhardwaj
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan and Ms. Preety Khare (for R1 to R-3); Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh (for R-4); Mr. Harshit Aggarwal, Mr. Vidit Garg, and Mr. Suresh K. Chopra (for R-5); Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Mr. Hitain Bajaj, and Mr. Ramesh Rawat (for R-6)
