W.P.(C) 6309/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6309/2026 & CM APPLs. 30952-30953/2026 VIKRANT DAMODAR CHAWARE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar Meena, Advocate versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Sachdeva, GP with Mr. Anurag Pandey, Mr. Abhijit Singh and Mr. Akash, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Vaibhav Kalra and Ms. Neha Bhatnagar, Advocates for R-2 to 4. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Sachdeva, GP for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 17.07.2026 1. This petition assails the Performance Management System1 ratings assigned to the Petitioner for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22, which, according to the Petitioner, resulted in his exclusion from consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee2 for promotion to the post of General Manager (Fire Services) against the vacancy year 2023. The Petitioner also assails the promotion order issued pursuant to the said DPC and seeks, inter alia, convening of a Review DPC, grant of consequential service benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, and refund of the amount allegedly recovered from him. 1 “PMS” 2 “DPC” This is a digitally signed order. 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 21/07/2026 at 11:19:18 W.P.(C) 6309/2026 Page 2 of 5 2. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the PMS ratings assigned to the Petitioner for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 are arbitrary, contrary to the applicable CHRM Circulars and PMS Guidelines, and were recorded by authorities not competent to undertake the appraisal exercise. It is further submitted that the ratings for both years were simultaneously assigned in December 2022, thereby vitiating the appraisal process. He states that the Petitioner has been pursuing representations seeking upgradation of the said PMS ratings and that the same are yet to be decided. A printout from the SAP system, which reflects that the representations are pending, has been handed over and is taken on record. 3. It is further submitted that although the promotion order pursuant to the DPC for the vacancy year 2023 has already been issued, the impugned PMS ratings are also relevant for the vacancy year 2026, as the applicable promotion criteria require consideration of the preceding five years’ PMS ratings. It is submitted that unless the pending representations are decided, the Petitioner is likely to once again be rendered ineligible for consideration for promotion. 4. Per contra, counsel for the Respondents raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner was aware of the PMS ratings in December, 2022 and of his exclusion from consideration by the DPC for the vacancy year 2023, yet has approached this Court only in the year 2026. It is further submitted that the promotion order pursuant to the DPC for the vacancy year 2023 has already been issued and acted upon. Counsel also submits that despite seeking quashing of the promotion order and a direction for convening a Review DPC, the officer who has been promoted pursuant to the said DPC has not This is a digitally signed order. 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 21/07/2026 at 11:19:18 W.P.(C) 6309/2026 Page 3 of 5 been impleaded as a party to the present proceedings. 5. This Court finds merit in the aforesaid preliminary objections. The pleadings disclose that the Petitioner was aware of the PMS ratings in December, 2022 and of his exclusion from consideration by the DPC held for the vacancy year 2023. The present petition has, however, been instituted only in the year 2026. The Supreme Court has consistently held that stale challenges to promotion ought not to be entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction and that repeated representations do not furnish a satisfactory explanation for belatedly seeking to reopen settled matters.3 A settled seniority or service position remaining unchallenged for three to four years ought not ordinarily to be reopened, particularly where rights of third parties have crystallised.4 6. Furthermore, the reliefs sought in the petition include quashing of the promotion order and a direction for convening a Review DPC, which would directly affect the rights of the officer promoted pursuant to the DPC for the vacancy year 2023. The said officer has not been impleaded as a party to the present proceedings. 7. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Petitioner’s challenge to the promotion order issued pursuant to the DPC for the vacancy year 2023. Entertaining such a challenge at this belated stage would necessarily entail unsettling a concluded promotion exercise and disturbing rights which have already crystallised in favour of the officer promoted pursuant thereto. Moreover, the Petitioner’s candidature could not have been considered by the DPC for the vacancy year 2023, as he 3 See P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152; Union of India v. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798 This is a digitally signed order. 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 21/07/2026 at 11:19:18 W.P.(C) 6309/2026 Page 4 of 5 admittedly did not satisfy the prescribed PMS benchmark for the relevant assessment years. 8. However, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner’s grievance regarding the pending representations seeking upgradation of the PMS ratings for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 stands on a different footing. Since the Petitioner asserts that the outcome of the said representations would have a bearing on his eligibility for consideration by the DPC against the vacancy year 2026, the interests of justice would be served by directing the Respondents to take an expeditious decision thereon. 9. Accordingly, the following directions are issued: i. The Respondents shall consider and decide the Petitioner’s representations seeking upgradation of the PMS ratings for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 within a period of four weeks from today. ii. In the event the Respondents take a decision adverse to the Petitioner, the same shall be communicated to him by way of a reasoned order. iii. In the event the Petitioner’s PMS ratings are upgraded and he is otherwise found eligible in accordance with the applicable rules, his candidature shall be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the vacancy year 2026. iv. The challenge to the promotion order for the vacancy year 2023 stands declined. 10. It is clarified that this Court has neither examined nor expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner’s claim regarding the PMS ratings or on the legal consequences, if any, that may ensue in the event the representations are accepted. It shall be open to the Petitioner to avail of 4 Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471 This is a digitally signed order. 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 21/07/2026 at 11:19:18 W.P.(C) 6309/2026 Page 5 of 5 such remedies as may be available to him in law against the decision taken on the representations or any consequential decision arising therefrom, if aggrieved. 11. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms, along with the pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 17, 2026/nk This is a digitally signed order. 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 21/07/2026 at 11:19:18