Gnct Of Delhi And Ors vs Azam Khan

Court
Delhi High Court

$
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on : 25.08.2026
Judgment delivered on : 01.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on : As per Digital Signature~
# CNR No. DLHC010058042016
+ W.P.(C) 8820/2016

GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners

versus

AZAM KHAN .....Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish K. Dixit CGSC, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik GP, Mr. Umar Hashmi, Mr. Ayush
Kumar advocates, ASI Ranveer Singh,
Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. Prashant
Shekhar, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

REVIEW PET. 533/2025, CM APPL. 66321/2025
1. This review petition has been filed by the respondent/review
petitioner seeking review of the order dated 06.11.2023 in the captioned
petition whereby this Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 533/2025 in W.P.(C) 8820/2016 Page 1 of 5

GNCTD by stating in paragraphs 19 to 22 as under:-
“19. If that be so, we are of the view that the
petitioners are justified in rejecting the representation
made by the respondent, vide order dated April 10,
2013. The Tribunal has clearly erred in not
appreciating the distinction, in the manner done by us,
in the aforesaid paragraphs. In fact, the Tribunal in
paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which we have
reproduced above, has disagreed with the distinction
drawn by the petitioners, by holding that the events
held in National Shooting Championship are
equivalent to events held in National Games. With
respect, such equivalence could not have been drawn
by the Tribunal, more so, when the petitioners
themselves had brought the difference between
National Games and National Shooting Championship.
20. Insofar as, reliance placed by the respondent in the
case of one ASI Dheerga Pal Singh is concerned,
though the petitioners have tried to justify, that his
promotion was only an ad hoc promotion from ASI to
SI and he had participated in different events, in any
case, in view of our observation qua Standing Order,
the petitioner cannot seek the benefit of out of turn
promotion only on the ground that, one ASI Dheerga
Pal Singh has been given the same benefit, as there
cannot be any negative equity, specially when the
terms of the Standing Order are very clear.
21. Though, Mrs. Ahlawat has also relied upon certain
judgments in respect of her submission that the out of
turn promotion is not a matter of right, we are of the
view, that the issue has to be seen in the context of the
Standing Order which governs the out of turn
promotion in Delhi Police and as already held above,
the case of respondent is not covered by the Standing
Order.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 533/2025 in W.P.(C) 8820/2016 Page 2 of 5

22. If that be so, in view of our discussion above, the
Tribunal has clearly erred in allowing the OA of the
respondent. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is
set aside. The petition is disposed of. No costs.”

2. At the outset, we may state here that against the aforesaid order dated
06.11.2023, the review petitioner/respondent had approached the Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 1185/2024 titled Azam Khan v. Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Ors. , which the petition came for consideration before the
Supreme Court on 27.02.2024 whereby the Supreme Court by condoning the
delay had rejected the writ petition by stating as under:-
“Delay condoned.

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court. Accordingly,
the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.”

3. We note that this review petition has been filed with a delay of 680
days.
4. The review petition is filed primarily on the ground that after
dismissal of the SLP, the review petitioner, who had reconciled to his fate
namely ‘no promotion under sports quota’ had recently come to know from
one of his colleagues that the petitioners – GNCTD - deliberately concealed
the fact that the Standing Order No.4 issued vide 39732-800/CB-II dated
19.10.1989 that formed the foundation of the order dated 06.11.2023 ceased
to exist because the standing order no. 4/2023 no. 68457-556/CD-II dated


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 533/2025 in W.P.(C) 8820/2016 Page 3 of 5

29.08.2003 had superseded the same. According to Mr. Chandrashekhar,
learned counsel for the review petitioner, hence, in view of this
development, the order dated 06.11.2023 requires review.
5. We are unable to accept the said submission for the simple reason that
the standing order dated 19.10.1989 is primarily for ‘recruitment’ and
‘promotion’ of ‘sportsman’ in Delhi Police. Whereas the standing order of
the year 2003 only deals with recruitment of meritorious sportpersons to
group C and D in Delhi Police. In other words, the same does not deal with
promotion under the ‘outstanding sportsman’ category.
6. No doubt, the standing order of 2003 does say that the same
supersedes previous standing order no. 4 issued on 19.10.1989, but the same
shall not help the case of the respondent for the reason, it only prescribes
recruitment of outstanding sportpersons in group C and D; and does not
grant of out of turn promotion to Inspector which is a group B post in Delhi
Police. In that sense effective from 2003, the “Out of Promotion” has been
done away with.
7. Even assuming the standing order of 2003 supersedes the standing
order of 1989 to the extent of recruitment and promotion; we have in the
impugned judgment rightly rejected the plea of the review petitioner on the
equivalence of the medals won in a National Shooting Championships as
against National Games, to hold the respondent, shall not qualify for out of
promotion.
8. That apart, the review petition having been filed with a delay of 680
days and also considering the fact that the Supreme Court has dismissed the


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 533/2025 in W.P.(C) 8820/2016 Page 4 of 5

SLP, we are of the view that the present review petition is liable to be
dismissed on merits as well as on delay. We order accordingly.


V. KAMESWAR RAO, J


MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026 /sr


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 533/2025 in W.P.(C) 8820/2016 Page 5 of 5