Screening Committee Recommended ACP Functional Rank, But No Final Order Followed; Delhi High Court Says Recommendation Creates No Enforceable Right
Facts
The petition was filed by Pawan Kumar and Virender Singh, both serving as Inspectors (Stenographers) in Delhi Police, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had rejected their claim for the Functional Rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP).
Both petitioners were appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Stenographers) in 1992–93 and were promoted as Inspectors (Stenographers) with effect from 14 August 2012.
In 2022, Delhi Police introduced a Functional Rank Scheme to address administrative requirements and stagnation in service. The scheme expressly provided that assignment of a Functional Rank:
- was not a promotion;
- conferred no financial, pensionary or seniority benefits;
- merely enabled officers to discharge higher functional responsibilities.
On 15 July 2022, the Screening Committee recommended the petitioners for assignment of the Functional Rank of ACP with effect from 15 August 2022, subject to:
- vigilance clearance; and
- issuance of a separate formal order.
However, no final order was ever issued.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) raised objections regarding the Functional Rank Scheme, following which the process was kept in abeyance.
The Delhi Police thereafter rejected the petitioners’ claim through a speaking order dated 1 August 2023, holding that they did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria applicable to the Stenographer Cadre.
After the CAT dismissed their challenge, the petitioners approached the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The Court considered:
- Whether the petitioners acquired any enforceable right merely because the Screening Committee recommended them for Functional ACP Rank.
- Whether officers who admittedly did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria could nevertheless claim the Functional Rank.
- Whether recommendation by the Screening Committee amounted to a final administrative decision.
- Whether the petitioners could claim parity with officers from other cadres or with juniors who had been granted the Functional Rank.
- Whether the Tribunal committed any error in refusing relief.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that:
- they were senior Inspectors (Stenographers);
- several junior officers had already been granted the Functional Rank of ACP;
- the requirement of completing 30 years’ service and obtaining the third MACP was unsupported by statutory rules;
- officers belonging to other cadres had received Functional ACP Rank despite rendering lesser service;
- the Screening Committee had already found them suitable and recommended their names;
- once the Commissioner of Police approved the recommendation, the respondents could not refuse implementation.
They further relied upon:
- Commissioner of Police v. Sanjay Bhardwaj;
- Yashbir Singh v. Union of India; and
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava,
to contend that similarly situated employees could not be treated differently.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Union of India and Delhi Police contended that:
- Functional Rank was purely an administrative arrangement, not a statutory promotion;
- different cadres were governed by different eligibility criteria;
- Inspectors (Stenographers) were eligible only upon:
- completion of 30 years’ service from appointment as ASI (Stenographer); and
- grant of the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme as on 30 June 2022.
The respondents pointed out that neither petitioner satisfied either requirement.
They further argued that:
- the Screening Committee’s recommendation was conditional;
- it required vigilance clearance and issuance of a separate order;
- no such final order was ever issued;
- therefore no legal right accrued.
They also submitted that officers from different cadres could not be compared because each cadre had distinct service structures and eligibility norms.
Analysis of the Law
Functional Rank Is Not a Promotion
The Court observed that the Functional Rank Scheme was created merely to meet organisational requirements.
It was neither:
- a statutory promotion;
- nor an ad hoc promotion.
Assignment of Functional Rank:
- did not increase salary;
- did not affect seniority;
- did not confer pensionary benefits.
It merely authorised officers to discharge higher functional responsibilities while retaining their substantive post.
Because the scheme itself was administrative, the employer retained discretion to prescribe eligibility conditions for different cadres.
Petitioners Were Admittedly Ineligible
The Court examined the eligibility criteria applicable to the Stenographer Cadre.
To receive the Functional Rank of ACP, an Inspector (Stenographer) had to:
- complete 30 years’ service from the date of appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspector; and
- receive the third MACP financial upgradation as on the cut-off date of 30 June 2022.
The Court found it undisputed that neither petitioner fulfilled these conditions.
Accordingly, they never entered the zone of eligibility.
The Court held that once they were ineligible under the governing criteria, no enforceable right could arise.
Recommendation Does Not Create a Legal Right
The High Court rejected the argument based on the Screening Committee recommendation.
It noted that:
- the recommendation was expressly made subject to vigilance clearance;
- the official order dated 16 July 2022 itself contemplated issuance of a separate formal order;
- no such order was ever issued.
The Court emphasised the distinction between:
- a recommendation; and
- a final administrative decision.
Until a competent authority issues the final order, a recommendation remains merely an intermediate step in the decision-making process.
Therefore, the recommendation created no vested or enforceable right.
MHA Objections Prevented Completion of the Process
Before the petitioners’ recommendation could mature into a final decision, the Ministry of Home Affairs questioned the legality of the Functional Rank Scheme.
Consequently:
- further implementation of Functional ACP Rank was kept in abeyance;
- the petitioners’ recommendation never culminated in a final order.
The Court held that this subsequent administrative development further prevented accrual of any enforceable right.
No Parity With Other Officers
The Court rejected the plea of discrimination.
It held that Articles 14 and 16 require equality only among persons who are similarly situated.
The petitioners could not compare themselves with:
- Executive Cadre officers;
- Computer Cadre officers;
- other support cadres,
because each cadre had separate eligibility conditions designed according to different organisational structures.
Even within the Stenographer Cadre, seniority alone could not override eligibility requirements.
Since the petitioners admittedly failed to satisfy the prescribed criteria, they could not invoke the doctrine of parity.
Precedent Analysis
SI Paras Kumar v. SI Ram Charan
The Supreme Court held that administrative arrangements or ad hoc assignments made outside the governing statutory framework do not create enforceable rights to promotion or higher rank.
The Delhi High Court relied upon this principle while holding that a Screening Committee recommendation, without a final order, created no vested right.
Commissioner of Police v. Sanjay Bhardwaj
The petitioners relied on this Delhi High Court decision to claim parity.
The Court distinguished it, observing that Sanjay Bhardwaj involved materially different facts and did not concern officers who admittedly failed to satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions.
Yashbir Singh v. Union of India
The petitioners relied upon this judgment regarding seniority.
The Court held that the principle could not assist them because seniority becomes relevant only after an employee satisfies the applicable eligibility conditions.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
The Supreme Court recognised that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive equal treatment.
The High Court clarified that the doctrine of equality applies only to employees who satisfy the same legal requirements. Since the petitioners were ineligible, they were not similarly situated to officers who fulfilled the prescribed criteria.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court concluded that the petitioners failed on every material issue.
The Court found that:
- they did not satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed for their cadre;
- the Screening Committee recommendation was conditional and never matured into a final order;
- Functional Rank was merely an administrative arrangement rather than a statutory promotion;
- officers belonging to different cadres could not be used as comparators for claiming equality.
Accordingly, neither Articles 14 and 16 nor the doctrine of legitimate expectation entitled the petitioners to the Functional Rank of ACP.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court upheld:
- the CAT’s order dismissing the Original Application; and
- the Delhi Police speaking order dated 1 August 2023 rejecting the petitioners’ claim.
It held that:
- the petitioners were ineligible under the applicable criteria;
- the Screening Committee recommendation created no enforceable right;
- no writ could be issued directing conferment of the Functional Rank of ACP.
Key Takeaways
- Functional Rank is an administrative assignment, not a statutory promotion.
- An employee must satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions before claiming any administrative benefit.
- A recommendation by a Screening Committee does not create an enforceable right unless followed by a final order.
- Courts ordinarily do not interfere with eligibility criteria framed by the employer unless they are arbitrary or unconstitutional.
- Equality under Articles 14 and 16 applies only among employees who are similarly situated under the applicable service rules.
- Seniority cannot override prescribed eligibility conditions.
Case Details
Case: Pawan Kumar (Inspector) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P.(C) 217/2025
Judges: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan
Reserved On: 26 February 2026
Date of Decision: 24 July 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed. The High Court upheld the CAT’s order and held that the petitioners, being ineligible under the prescribed criteria and having received only a conditional recommendation without a final order, had no enforceable right to claim the Functional Rank of ACP.
