SANTOSH VITTHALRAO INDRAKSHA & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 970/2021, CM APPLs. 2620/2021, 10122/2021, 10838/2021, 53363/2022, 53364/2022, 53365/2022, 10526/2023, 10527/2023, 12863/2023 & 58225/2023 SANTOSH VITTHALRAO INDRAKSHA & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Kumar and Mr. Vaibhav Pachauri, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advs. for UOI Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Mahinder Singh Hura, Mr. Saif Ali, Mr. Pushpendra S. Bhadoriya, Mr. Vijay Sharma, Mr. Pranav Menon, Mr. Ajith Williyam S. and Mr. Saurav, Advs. for R-6, R-7, R-9 & R-11 Mr. M.K. Madan and Mr. Gunit Shah, Advs. for R-15 Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj and Ms. Sakshi Saugat, Advs. for R-10 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 02.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 970/2021 Page 1 of 11 KUMAR Signing Date:07.04.2026 15:23:03 1. Respondents 6 to 161 were appointed as Technical Officers in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 2015. They were promoted as Assistant Drug Controllers2 on 1 May 2015. 2. As against this, the petitioners were appointed as ADCs by direct recruitment between the years 2016 and 2018. 3. On 8 April 2016, the official respondents drew up a provisional seniority list in which the petitioners were placed above the private respondents. The private respondents represented against the said seniority list. The representation was rejected on 25 June 2019. The private respondents thereafter petitioned the Central Administrative Tribunal3 by way of OA 2001/2019, claiming that they were entitled to seniority above the petitioners as their appointment, on promotion,