Dismissed¶9

Union of India & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/16401/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 16401/2022; Union of India v. Manoj Kumar; seniority; retrospective promotion; Machinist (HS-II); Ordinance Factory Muradnagar; cadre restructuring; 6th Pay Commission; promotion/change of post order dated 12.03.2011; trade test relaxation; Scheduled Caste candidates; M. Nagaraj; supervisory jurisdiction; perversity; jurisdictional error; CAT Principal Bench; O.A. No.635/2013; order dated 30.05.2019.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the Petitioners was unable to demonstrate any infirmity in the Tribunal's order dated 30.05.2019, either on facts or in law, warranting interference by this Court. ¶6

Union of India & Ors. Vs Manoj Kumar & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.635/2013 suffers from any infirmity on facts or in law warranting interference by this Court. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the Petitioners was unable to demonstrate any infirmity in the Tribunal's order dated 30.05.2019, either on facts or in law, warranting interference by this Court.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The conclusions of the Tribunal are founded on due appreciation of the material on record and the applicable legal position, and do not suffer from perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error.

¶7

Key takeaways

In exercise of its limited supervisory jurisdiction, the Court found no ground to take a view different from that taken by the Tribunal.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition dismissed. The petitioners challenged the order dated 30.05.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.635/2013, by which Respondent No.1 (applicant) was directed to be treated as senior to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the post of Machinist (HS-II). Respondent Nos.2 and 3, though junior to Respondent No.1 in the feeder cadre, had been granted retrospective promotion to Machinist (HS-II) from 01.01.2006 and 03.02.2006 pursuant to a promotion/change of post order dated 12.03.2011 issued in the wake of the 2010 cadre restructuring following the 6th Pay Commission recommendations, thereby superseding Respondent No.1. The Tribunal had held that relaxation from the requirement of clearing the trade test could be granted only where a specific provision in the rules existed, and that no such provision had been shown. The High Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the impugned order on facts or in law, that the Tribunal's conclusions suffered from no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error, and that in its limited supervisory jurisdiction there was no ground to take a different view. Petition dismissed.

¶1

$~34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16401/2022 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. . ....Petitioners Through: Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh, SPC along with Mr. Varun Chugh and Ms. Ayushi Agarwal, Advs. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC along with Ms. Maanya Saxena and Mr. Sujeet Chaudhary, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shankar K. Jha, Adv. for R-1. Ms. Sonika and Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advs. for R-2.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 19.03.2026

¶10

As per the findings recorded by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟], Respondent No.1 (Applicant before the Tribunal) joined the service of the Ordinance Factory, Muradnagar, in the feeder cadre, i.e., a Skilled Machinist in the year 2003 and was promoted as Machinist (SK) in the year 2005. Upon completion of the requisite period of service and on qualifying the prescribed trade test, he was further promoted to the post of Machinist (HS). Thereafter, in the year 2012, he was promoted to the post of Machinist (HS Grade-I) upon clearing the requisite trade test.

¶11

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were, at all relevant times, junior to

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:53:03

¶14

Respondent No.1 in the feeder cadre and were placed below him in the seniority list. Both Respondent Nos.2 and 3 belong to the Scheduled Caste category.

¶15

Pursuant to the implementation of the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission, a restructuring of the cadre was undertaken in the year 2010. In furtherance thereof, the Respondents issued a promotion/change of post vide order dated 12.03.2011, whereby Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were granted promotion to the post of Machinist (HS-II) with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006 and 03.02.2006, respectively. The Respondent No.1, however, was shown to have been promoted to the said post with effect from 01.05.2007.

¶16

As a consequence of the aforesaid retrospective promotions, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to be placed above Respondent No.1 in the seniority list of Machinist (HS-II), thereby rendering Respondent No.1 junior to them despite their admitted junior position in the feeder cadre.

¶17

The Tribunal, while partly allowing the O.A. No.635/2013 filed by the Respondent No.1, has made the following observations:

¶18

“6. From a perusal of the record, it becomes clear that the applicant was extended the benefit of promotion to various posts as and when he acquired the eligibility and cleared the trade test, without any impediment. However, dates of promotion were revised in view of the restructuring. Different dates were assigned for promotion to the restructured posts. In that behalf, the applicant was deemed to have been promoted to the post of Machinist (HS-II) with effect from 01.05.2007.

¶19

7. It is not in dispute that the respondents no. 4 and 5 were juniors to the applicant. The appointing authority, however, promoted them to the post of Machinist (HS-II) with effect from the date earlier to that of the applicant. Assuming that the respondents have undertaken an exercise of ascertaining the adequacy or otherwise of the representation of the SC candidates for the post of Machinist (HS-II), we find it difficult to accept the contention of the respondents as regards grant of relaxation from trade test to the said candidate. No

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:53:03

¶22

proceedings or recruitment rules are cited in this behalf.

¶23

8. Whatever be the competence of the appointing authority to implement reservation, duly observing the steps indicated by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj's case, the relaxation from requirement of clearing the trade test can be granted only when there is a specific provision in the rules. None of the respondents have placed before us any such provisions.

¶24

9. Since the applicant as well as the respondents no. 4 & 5 have already been promoted, we partly allow the O.A and direct that the applicant shall be treated as senior to respondents no. 4 & 5 in the post of Machinist (HS-II). We, however, do not disturb the promotion that has been extended to respondents no. 4 & 5. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶25

Learned counsel representing the Petitioners has not been able to demonstrate any infirmity in the Impugned Order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A., either on facts or in law, warranting interference by this Court.

¶26

The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are founded on a due appreciation of the material on record and the applicable legal position, and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error.

¶27

This Court, in exercise of its limited supervisory jurisdiction, finds no ground to take a view different from that taken by the Tribunal.

¶28

Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed.

¶29

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶30

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶31

MARCH 19, 2026 s.godara/shah

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:53:03

Union of India & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Kaushik Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan (Hq) & Ors.

Harvinder Singh Lamba Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shree Gandhi Ashram Vs Shri Anil Sankhwal & Anr.

Arun Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Satish Chander and Ors. Vs Government of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Itd Cementation India Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indraprastha Gas Limited Vs UOI

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Jwo Vinod Kumar Agnihotri (695516-R)

Garima Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajat Choudhary Vs Union of India

M/S. Lomash Slurrytech Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Dsc Engineering Private Limited

Staff Selection Commission and Anr. Vs Mandeep

Central Board of Trustees & Ors. Vs Ram Sagar Roy

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs Amit Kumar