W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 1 of 1 $~ P - 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 29.08.2025 + W.P.(C) 1280/2023 KIRAN SONKUSALE ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Advocate. versus CENTRE FOR RAILWAY INFORMATION SYSTEMS (CRIS) ...Respondent Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar & Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocates with Mr. Aman Prakash, Executive HRD. [M: - 9810312011] CORAM: +21¶%/(05-867,&(35$7((.-$/$1 J U D G M E N T 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seks a direction upon the respondent to promote him to the post of Principal Project Enginee 13A , from the date on which he became eligible for the said promotion, alongwith all consequential benefits. He also challenges communications dated 09.03.2023 and 11.08.2023 , by which such promotion was denied to him. A. F ACTS : 2. The petitioner joined the respondent as an Assistant Software Engineer on 13.09.2004. He was promoted to the post of Software Engineer with effect from 17.10.2006, and to the post of Senior Software Engineer with effect from 17.10.2009. He was thereafter promoted to the W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 2 of 1 post of Project Enginer in 2013, granted thre increments in lieu of acelerated promotion from 2016, and further promoted to the post of Senior Project Engineer [“SPE”] on 3. The petitioner resigned from the services of the respondent on 17.10.2022, stating that his last day of work would be 16.01.2023. The respondent acepted his resignation by a comunication dated 10.11.2022, with effect from 16.01.2023, subject to completion of certain formalities . He was relieved of his duties with effect from 16.01.2023 and joined his new employment at Pune Metro , under the Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Limited , on 17.01.2023. 4. The present writ petition conc promotion to the post of PPE from the post of SPE. It is not disputed that , for promotion to the post of PE, the qualifying service requirement was four years’ service in the grade the year 2021. However, it is the al Promotion Committee [“DPC”] was co , or in May/June 2022, as required by an Office Order of the respondent dated 04.03.2009. The DPC was constituted to consider promotion from the post of SPE to PE only on 26.10.2022, by which time the petitioner had already submitted his resignation. The petitioner made a representation on 14.11.2022 in this regard, but was not considered by the DPC. In its recommendations dated 02.12.2022, name had ben removed from the earlier eligibility list , in view of his resignation. Pursuant to the DPC ’s recommendation s , a promotion order was issued on 12.01.2023, exclud promotions were made retrospective from the dates of their eligibility. W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 3 of 1 5. The petitioner made further representations in this regard , even after he had ben relieved by the respondent. In fact, on his very last date of service with the respondent, i.e. , 16.01.2023, he acknowledged that his promotion was not considered, as his resignation had ben acepted. However, he requested issuance of a communication stating that he was due for such promotion since June 2021, and stated that it would be helpful in his new employment. He again made representations for promotion on 30.01.2023, 01.03.2023, 13.03.2023, 20.03.2023 , 26.05.2023, 11.06.2023 , 19.07.2023, 21.07.2023, and 02.08.2023 , which were rejected by the impugned comunications dated 09.03.20 2 3 and 11.08.2023. While rejecting his representations , the respondent noted that he had already resigned from service, and that the promotions required a probation period of six months , which he was not in a position to fulfill . B. S UBMISIONS OF THE PARTIES : 6. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh , learned counsel for the petitioner, submit ted that the petitioner remained an employe of the respondent until 16.01.2023, when he was finally relieved. H is eligibility for promotion to the post of PE was fulfilled in the year 2021 itself, much prior to submission of his resignation on 1 7 .10.2022. However, he had not ben considered for promotion , as the respondent did not hold a DPC at the relevant time in 2021 or 2022, thus depriving him of promotional avenue s, which would have also inure d to his benefit for the purposes of seniority , etc. , in his new employment. Mr. Singh drew my attention to an Office Order dated 04.03.2009, which require s DPC to be constituted in May/June of each year for consideration of promotions for the period up W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 4 of 1 to 30 th June , and for those becoming eligible by 31 st December of the year . 7. Mr. Singh relied upon the Division Bench decision s in Union of India v. P.G. George 1 and Bhagwan Singh v. Union of India 2 , to submit that superannuating employes have a right to be considered for promotion in DPCs constituted belatedly, so that they can be acorded the benefits of retrospective promotions. Mr. Singh also cited the judgment of a c oordinate Bench in V.P. Kathuria and Others v. Cement Corporation of India and Another 3 , which considered the claims of several employes of Cement Corporation of India for promotion by constitution of DPC s . The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to consideration of promotion , as they were in service on the date from which retrospective promotion had ben granted to other employes, although they ha d superannuated prior to the constitution of the DPC. The Court expressly rejected the distinction betwen employees who had superannuated and one employe who had resigned , stating that the resigned employe was also in service on the date in question and therefore had a right to consideration, just as employes who had superannuated in the interregnum . 8. Acording to Mr. Singh, such a course is also mandated by an O ffice M emorandum [“O.M.”] dated 12.10.1998, issued by the Department of Personnel & Train D o PT ”] , which requires consideration of eligible employes, who were in the zone of consideration at the relevant time, even if they were not in service when 1 W.P. (C) 4864/2010, decided on 23.07.2010 [here P.G. George ”]. 2 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5545 [hereinafter, “ Bhagwan Singh ”]. W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 5 of 1 the DPC was held. Mr. Singh submits that application of the O . M . is waranted by application of Rule 15 of the responde Recruitment Rules, 1986, [“Recruitment Rules”] which provide s that the terms and conditions of service would, to the extent not specifically mentioned in the R ecruitment Rules , be on the pattern of the Central Government. 9. Mr. Chandan Kumar , learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand , submit ted at the outset that the respondent , being a Registered Society , the O M s of the D o PT do not ipso facto apply to it. He further submit ted that Rule 12.2 of the Recruitment Rules of the respondent provides for a probation period of six months even on promotion, and that a promoted employee is required to be confirmed in the promoted post based on his/her satisfactory performance during the probation period , failing which he/she is liable to be reverted to the original post. Mr. Kumar argued that the petitioner’s prom considered by the DPC constituted in Oct ober 2022, as he would not have ben in a position to fulfil the probation requirement prior to lapse of his three months’ notice period. Accor writ of mandamus of this nature, would therefore be impossible of compliance in accordance with the applicable R ecruitment R ules . 10. Mr. Kumar also drew my attention to an Office Order dated 29.09.20 23, issued by the respondent , which refered to representations from employes /former employes who were not considered for promotion , as they could not fulfil the mandatory six - month probation period after promotion , due to superannuation or resignation with residual service of less than six months. The respondent reiterated Rule 12.2 in 3 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7799 [hereinafter, “ V.P. Kathuria ”]. W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 6 of 1 this regard , and stated that employes who do not have residual service of six months are not eligible for the benefit of promotion. 11. Mr. Singh, however, submitted in rejoinder, that the Office Order dated 29.09.2023 could not be applied retrospectively to the peti case. 12. Pursuant to an order dated 15.07.2025, the respondent also filed an affidavit dated 22.07.2025 , stating that , to the best of t knowledge, no employe with less than six months of residual service had ben considered for promotion prior to the Office Order dated 2 9.09.2023 , i n view of Rule 12.2 . I t was stated that the said R ule had ben in existence since the constitution of the respondent, and that the Office Order dated 2 9.09.202 3 was only intended to be clarificatory. 13. With regard to non - constitution of the DPC in the year 2021 and until Oct ober 2022, the respondent stated as follows: ³7KDWZLWKUHJDUGWRTXHU\UDLVH order, I say that COVID Lock Down started from March 2020. Constitution of DPC for 2020 was delayed. That CRIS Rules requires participation of two External Members. Leters to other organisations for nominating external members were isued in December 2020. Post receiving names of external members, DPC was constituted on 16.2.2021. That post constitution of the DPC, two members, one internal and one external sought recusal. DPC was finaly constituted in August 2021. DPC met on 25.8.21 to 25.11.21 through VC and made recomendation dated 25.11.2021. The Managing Director raised some queries and those queries were satisfied in July 202 when the Managing Director accepted the recomendation and promotion orders were isued dated 28.7.202. 4.2 That petitioner was due for promotion in June 2021. That DPC for next year starts post completion of previous year DPC. In view thereof, list of eligible candidates due for promotion was prepared on 3HWLWLRQHU¶V QDPH ZDV WKH nomination of External Members were isued in September 202. External organisation comunicated nomination of their employees by their leter dated 6.10.202. On 17.10.202 Petitioner submitted his W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 7 of 1 UHVLJQDWLRQZLWKPRQWKV¶QRWLFH' 26.10.202. Petitioner had exit interview with GM HR on 27.10.202 when he was explained that in the event of his resignation, he would not be eligible for promotion. He agreed to forgo his promotion in order to get native place job and beter promotion oportunity in new organisation. Accordingly his resignation was accepted by leter dated 10.11.202. In terms of mandate of Chapter 5, Para 12.2 of CRIS Bye Laws, a revised list of eligible candidate was prepared on 15.11.202 where his name did not figure in the list. DPC sat between 30.11.2 to 2.12.202 when it isued its recomendation dated 2.12.202. 3URPRWLRQRUGHUVZHUHLVVXHGGDWHG notice got completed on 16.1.2023. He joined Pune Metro after UHOLHYLQJIURPWKH&5,67KLVSHWLWLR C. A NALYSIS : 14. For the purposes of the present case, I proced on the basis that , by virtue of the O . M . dated 12.10.1998 , the petitioner would ordinarily have ben eligible for consideration for promotion , having attained eligibility in June 2021 , when he was in the service of the respondent. This position is also evident from the judgments relied upon by Mr. Singh, particularly in V.P. Kathuria , which expressly consider ed the case of a resigned employe, and applie d the judgments in P.G. George , Bhagwan Singh , and Union of India v. Bishan Dass 4 . 15. However, in my view, the position in the distinguishable , due to Rul e 12.2 of the Recruitment Rules , which reads as follows: ³D3UREDWLRQSHULRGIRUDOOHPSOR\HH b ) Confirmation of an employee working in a higher post is subject to his/her performance in the higher post being satisfactory during the probation period. He/ S he is liable to be reversed to his/her original post if his/her performance is considered to be unsatisfactory by the competent authority . 5 ´ 4 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5914. 5 Emphasis supplied. W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 8 of 1 16. In none of the judgments refered to above , was there a rule - based requirement of probation in the promoted posts. The denial of promotion to employes who do not possess sufficient residual service is not , in my view , arbitrary or unreasonable , so as to invite interference by the w rit Court. 17. I am unpersuaded by Mr. Singh’s R ule could be applied only after the respondent Circular dated 29.09.2023. The said Circular reads as follows: ³6XE 3UREDWLRQ SHULRG RQ SURPRWLRQ - Para 12 of Chapter 5 Recruitment Rules (isued under Bye Laws 3.1). This ofice is receiving representations from retired/resigned or working employees who were not considered for promotion/ denied promotion as they were not fulfiling the mandatory criteria of satisfactory completion of 6 - month probation period in higher post after promotion either due to superanuation or resignation and having residual service les than 6 months. In this regard it is reiterated that promotions in CRlS are governed by CRIS By Laws and Rules/orders/ instruction isued thereunder from time to time. Para 12 of Chapter 5 on Recruitment Rules (under CRlS By laws 3.1) about Probation on Promotion (12.2) stipulates as under ± a) Probation period for all employees promoted shal be six months. b) Confirmation of an employee working in a higher post is subject to his/ her performance in the higher post being satisfactory during the probation period. He/she is liable to be reversed to his/her original post if his/her performance is unsatisfactory by the competent authority. In view of the above notified provision, it is reiterated that those employees who do not have a residual service of 6 months left at the time of consideration their promotion/isue of promotion order either before their superanuation or before leaving the organisation by way of resignation, for completing the mandatory six - month satisfactory probation on higher post are not eligible for the benefit of promotion. The rule position quoted above is isued for information. Past cases, if any, decided otherwise wil not be re - opened. 7KLVLVVXHVZLWKWKHDSSURYDORI& W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 9 of 1 The Circular evidently relies upon Rule 12.2 itself , which was admittedly applicable from the original constitution of the respondent , and reiterates the consequential position. I agre with Mr. Kumar that the Circular was clarificatory in nature and did not establish a new regime for prospective application. 18. As noted above, learned counsel for the parties joined issue on the question as to whether the O.M. dated 12.10.1998 is applicable to the respondent. Mr. Singh relied upon Rule 15 of the Recruitment Rules, which reads as follows: ³ Al other terms and conditions of service not specificaly mentioned in these rules will be on the patern of the Central Government, except when these are further specified by the Centre IURPWLPHWRWLPH´ The Rule on its own terms applie s the terms and conditions of service on the pattern of the Central Government where they are not specifically mentioned in the service rules, except when they are further specified by the respondent from time to time. Therefore, in the context of the specific question raised in this petition, the O.M. would not be applicable, as the consequence thereof would be inconsistent with the express mandate of respondent’s Rules . It is, therefore, not necessary to consider the general question as to whether OM s of the Government of India are applicable to the respondent – Society. 19. In the facts of the present case, I am also of the view that the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of non - constitution of the DPC in the year s 2020 and 2021. As stated in the respondent ’s additional affidavit, the petitioner became eligible for promotion only in June 2021 . A s a result of the COVID - 19 p andemic and its consequent effect on W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 10 of 1 administrative functioning, the DPC for 2020 was held only in August to November 2021 , and promotion orders were issued on 28.07.2022. The DPC for 2021 was therefore constituted only thereafter , and by the time it completed its deliberations , the petitioner had submitted his resignation with three months’ notice. The de , in my view , not so inordinate as to justify a departure from the probation requirements, in the petitioner’s case. Th the COVID - 19 p andemic resulted in unforesen effect s on many administrative procedures, and th - consideration for promotion cannot be invalidated on this ground. 20. One further matter requires consideration. The petitioner has refered to the case of one Balwan Singh , who was apparently considered for promotion in the year 2011 , a lthough he had only two months ’ service prior to superannuation. This information has ben derived by the petitioner from a comunication dated 13.06.2025 , addressed by the respondent to the National Comission for Scheduled Caste s , in response to a complaint by another employee of the respondent. T he respondent has justified non - promotion of the concerned employe by reference to Rule 12.2 , but acepted that Balwan Singh was promoted while in service with effect from 30.06.2011, although he was due to retire on 31.08.2011. I am not inclined to allow the pet f an isolated incident of 2011 , which runs contrary to the R ules. 21. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, it is evident that the petitioner had resigned from the services of the respondent to pursue other opportunities , and voluntarily disabled himself from completing the W.P.(C) 1280/2023 Page 1 of 1 mandatory probation period , which was a pre - requisite for promotion. The respondent’s actions were therefore in acordance with its Recruitment Rules, and are not vitiated by arbitrariness or unreasonableness , so as to warant interference in the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of the w rit Court. D. C ONCLUSION : 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, but without any orders as to costs. PRATEK JALAN, J AUGUST 29, 2025 µ66 /UK / Jishnu/ Khushi ¶/