New Delhi [India], December 28 : The Delhi High Court, by a detailed order dated December 26, modified its earlier interim restraint and directed the Union government to proceed with Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) for a defined category of Central GST Inspectors, holding that promotions of officers whose seniority is undisputed cannot be stalled due to a limited inter-se dispute raised by juniors.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vikas Mahajan and Justice Vinod Kumar clarified that the respondents would be at liberty to hold further DPCs for Inspectors placed above Serial No. 923 in the final seniority list dated July 3, 2025.
The Court observed that the core controversy in the writ petition relates only to promotions of officers junior to the petitioners, and, therefore, there was no justification to impose a blanket embargo on promotions of senior officers.
The Court was hearing connected applications arising out of a writ petition filed by promotee Inspectors of the 2017 batch, placed at Serial No. 923 onwards in the final seniority list. These petitioners had challenged the order dated December 19, 2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which directed that promotions to the post of Superintendent of Central GST would remain subject to the outcome of the Original Application.
By an ex parte ad interim order dated December 24, 2025, the High Court had restrained the Department from holding further DPCs on the basis of the July 3 seniority list read with the corrigendum dated July 31, 2025. This restraint prompted a group of directly recruited inspectors of the 2014 batch, who are senior in the same seniority list, to move an urgent application through Advocate Abhishek Singh, seeking a limited modification of the interim order.
The 2014 batch of inspectors was represented by Kirtiman Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Abhishek Singh, Advocate, who submitted that the applicants had no inter-se seniority dispute with the writ petitioners and that their promotions were wholly independent of the corrigendum under challenge. It was argued that continuation of a blanket restraint would cause serious and irreversible prejudice to senior officers, including loss of their rightful position in the all-India seniority of the Superintendent cadre for the vacancy year 2026.
On behalf of the petitioners, Vipin Kumar Bharti, Advocate, appeared, while the Union of India was represented by Nikita Sethi, Advocate, who also pointed out that failure to convene the DPC before December 31, 2025, would adversely impact the all-India seniority of officers in the Superintendent cadre.
Accepting the submissions advanced for the senior officers, the High Court allowed their impleadment as respondents and partially lifted its earlier restraint. The Bench held that the DPC bar would not apply to Inspectors whose seniority is undisputed and unaffected by the corrigendum and permitted the Department to convene the regular DPC for the vacancy year 2026 on or before December 31, 2025, in respect of Inspectors placed above Serial No. 923 in the seniority list.
The Court categorically noted that the dispute before it is confined to the petitioners and their juniors, whereas the newly impleaded applicants are indubitably senior. Accordingly, the interim order dated December 24, 2025, was modified to that limited extent, while the challenge relating to promotions of junior officers continues to remain pending for adjudication.