Rajbir Singh vs. Commissioner Of Police & Ors.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 15.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 23.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2804/2024
RAJBIR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. S. S. Hooda and Mr. Shaurya
Banshtu, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey,
CGSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 read with Article
227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 22.12.2023
(hereafter ‘ impugned order ’) passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereafter
‘ Tribunal ’) in O.A. No. 4276/2015. The Petitioner’s challenge to the
rejection of his representation for grant of seniority from an earlier date
was dismissed by the impugned order.
2. Succinctly stated, the Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector
(Exe.) in the Delhi Police on 21.11.1991. In recognition of his service,
he was granted an out-of-turn ad hoc promotion to the rank of Inspector
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 1 of 14

(Exe.) on 17.02.1998 under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion &
Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereafter ‘ Delhi Police Rules ’).
Subsequently, by order dated 31.12.1999, the said out-of-turn promotion
was antedated with effect from 02.11.1994. Thereafter, the Petitioner’s
promotion was regularised with effect from 02.07.1997 vide order dated
24.01.2000.
3. Thereafter, in the year 2014, the Petitioner preferred a
representation to the Respondents seeking antedating of his
regularisation in promotion to 02.11.1994, i.e., the date from which his
out-of-turn promotion had been given effect, along with all consequential
benefits.
4. However, the said representation was rejected by the Respondents
vide order dated 09.10.2015. The relevant portion of the rejection order
is reproduced as under: -
“The representation dated 14.09.2015 submitted by Inspector (Exc.)
Rajbir Singh Malik, No. D-I/309 for fixation of his seniority in the
rank of Inspector by extending the benefit of judgement dated
06.05.2013.delivered. by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP
No.6626/2011- Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Brahmjeet Singh
& Ors. has been considered in this Hdqrs. It has been found that the
representationist was granted out turn promotion in the rank of Inspr.
(Exe ) on adhoc basis under Rule-19(ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion
& Confirmation) Rules 1980 w.e.f 22.11994 and his seniority was
fixed in the bottom of Promotion List-F (Exe.) dated 12.08.1994,
It has also been found that the Hon'ble CAT vide common judgement
dated 10.06.2011 in O.A. No. 2612/2005- Brahmjeet Singh Vs. UOI
& ors. and in another similar OA directed to fix the applicants’
seniority with reference to the year in which they have been given out
of turn promotion by placing their names at the bottom of the
respective promotion lists of the year in which out of turn promotion
has actually been given to them. The said order of the Hon'ble CAT
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 2 of 14

has also been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its
judgement dated 06.05.2013 in CWP No. 6626/2011 - Commissioner
of Police, Delhi Vs. Brahmjeet Singh & Ors. and the same has been
challenged by the department in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in SLP No. 11470/2014.
Inspector (Exe.) Rajbir Singh Maiik, No. DI/ 309 was granted out of
turn promotion in the rank of Inspr. (Exe.) on adhoc basis under Rule-
19(ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 w.e.f.
22.11.1994 and his seniority was fixed by placing his name in the
bottom of Promotion List-F (Exe.) dated 12.08.1994 i.e. in the same
year in which he had been granted out of turn promotion which is
already in consonance with the judgement dated 10.06.2011
delivered by the Hon'ble CAT duly upheld by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi vide its judgement dated 06.05.2013, referred to above. This
also dispose off his earlier representation dated 11.04.2014 received
in this Hdqrs. vide U.O. No.9315/Estt. Br. (DAI/ Sec., dated
16.04.2014.
The Inspector may be informed accordingly.”
5. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by way
of O.A. No. 4276/2015, assailing the order of rejection dated 09.10.2015.
The said application was, however, dismissed by the learned Tribunal
vide the impugned order. The learned Tribunal held that the Respondents
had rightly placed the Petitioner at the bottom of the promotion list dated
12.08.1994, which had been prepared in the same year in which he was
granted out-of-turn ad hoc promotion.
6. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the
present petition.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Rule 19(ii) of
the Delhi Police Rules requires that out-of-turn promotees be placed at
the bottom of the Promotion List prepared for the year of such
promotion, and not a list merely prepared in that year . He places reliance
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 3 of 14

on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.6283/2015 titled GNCTD & Ors Vs. Ravinder Pal .
8. He submitted that the Petitioner was placed at the bottom of
Promotion List-F (Exe.) dated 12.08.1994, as a result of which his
regularisation was effected only on 02.07.1997, i.e., after the last officer
in the said list was promoted. He submitted that the “promotion list for
the year 1994” ought to refer only to officers actually promoted in that
year, and not an extended list operating over subsequent years.
9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner provided details of certain
Police officers who were granted out of turn promotion under Rule 19(ii)
of the Delhi Police Rules in 1994, the same are reproduced as under:

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 4 of 14

10. He submitted that the contents of the aforementioned table, clearly
establish that the year in which the said police officers were granted out
of turn promotion and the year in which out of turn promotion was
regularized is the same i.e. 1994. He submitted that the last promotion
order in the year 1994 was issued on 18.08.1994 and the Respondents
have clearly placed the said officers at the bottom of the Promotion List
for the year 1994 in accordance with the mandate of Rule 19(ii) of the
Delhi Police Rules. He submitted that the Petitioner has not been treated
similarly and has been singled out by not placing him at the bottom of
the promotion list of Sub-Inspectors who were actually promoted in the
year 1994.
11. He submitted that the Respondents in their Counter-Affidavit
before the learned Tribunal admitted that ad-hoc promotions of as many
as 267 Sub-Inspectors were regularised with effect from 18.08.1994 out
of whom, promotion of 7 Sub Inspectors was discontinued. He submitted
that conjoint reading of Rule 19(ii) and the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in GNCTD & Ors Vs. Ravinder Pal ( Supra ), leads to the
irresistible conclusion that the Petitioner ought to be placed at the bottom
of the list of 267 Sub-Inspectors who were given regular promotion with
effect from 18.08.1994.
12. He submitted that vide order dated 16.04.2014, the Delhi Police
regularised the promotion of a similarly situated officer, one Brahmjeet
Singh in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in GNCTD &
Ors Vs. Ravinder Pal ( Supra ). He submitted that similar orders dated
17.12.2013, were also passed by the Delhi Police in the case of one
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 5 of 14

Constable Banay Singh. However, the same relief was denied to the
Petitioner.
13. Per Contra, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel
vehemently opposed the present petition. She submitted that the
impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, whatsoever.
14. She submitted that the last candidate in the said Promotion List-F
(Exe.) came to be regularised with effect from 02.07.1997, and
consequently, the Petitioner’s ad hoc promotion was also regularised
from the same date vide order dated 24.01.2000, strictly in accordance
with Rule 19(ii). She further submitted that the Petitioner did not raise
any objection to the said order at the relevant time and approached the
authorities only after an inordinate delay of over 14 years, whereafter his
representation was rightly rejected.
15. She submitted that in the DPC dated 12.08.1994, 337 eligible Sub-
Inspectors (Exe.) were admitted to Promotion List-F (Exe.), out of which
267 were promoted on regular basis with effect from 18.08.1994, 21
were granted proforma promotion, and 4 were deferred on account of
censure. She submitted that the remaining 45 officers were granted ad
hoc promotion on 18.08.1994, i.e., prior to the Petitioner’s promotion,
out of which 7 were later discontinued and the remaining 38 were
regularised with effect from 02.07.1997. She submitted that since these
38 officers, who were already borne on the said Promotion List, were
regularised from 02.07.1997, the Petitioner’s regularisation was also
correctly effected from the same date.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 6 of 14

16. She submitted that the contention of the Petitioner regarding
certain officers, namely, S.I Niyam Pal Singh, S.I. Raj Kumar, S.I. Rajbir
Singh, S.I. Raja Ram and S.I. Surender Kumar, being granted out-of-turn
promotion and regularisation in the same year is misplaced, as those
officers had been granted such promotion prior to the DPC dated
12.08.1994 and were duly considered by the DPC in accordance with
their seniority, belonging to earlier batches (1979–1982), unlike the
Petitioner who was appointed as Sub-Inspector (Exe.) only on
22.11.1991.
Analysis
17. In the present case the Petitioner has been granted out of turn ad
hoc promotion in terms of Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police Rules, hence,
this Court, at the outset considers it apposite to discuss the provision of
Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police Rules. Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police
Rules has been reproduced hereunder:
“(ii) To encourage outstanding sportsmen, marksmen,
officers who have shown exceptional gallantry and
devotion to duty, the Commissioner of Police may, with
prior approval of Administrator, promote such officers
to the next higher rank provided vacancies exist. Such
promotions shall not exceed 5 per cent of the vacancies
likely to fall vacant in the given year not in the rank.
Such promotions shall be treated as ad-hoc and will be
regularised when the persons so promoted have
successfully completed the training course prescribed
like (Lower School Course), if any. For purposes of
seniority such promotees shall be placed at the
bottom of the promotion list drawn up for that year. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 7 of 14

18. Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police Rules provides that officers who
have shown exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty may be promoted
to the next higher rank provided vacancies exist. The said rule further
provides that, for the purpose of seniority, such promotees shall be placed
at the bottom of the promotion list drawn up for that year.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in GNCTD & Ors Vs. Ravinder Pal
( Supra ) held that the correct interpretation of Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi
Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 is that the official(s)
promoted out of turn in any year shall be placed, for the purpose of
seniority, at the bottom of the Promotion List of the year in which out of
turn promotion is given. The Hon’ble Apex Court while also discussing
Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police Rules held as under:
“We are persuaded to take this view as a reading of
the Rule 19, sub-Rule (ii) makes it clear that for
purposes of seniority, they would be placed at the
bottom of the promotion list drawn up for that year.
This would, in turn, imply that the promotions are
earned in the year when the vacancy accrued. They are
given ad hoc promotions first because of certain
special circumstances i.e. for an act of bravery,
gallantry and devotion to duty. How the seniority
would be reckoned would be clarified from the last
portion of the Rule which provides that for purposes of
seniority, such promotees shall be placed at the
bottom of the promotion list drawn up for that year.
Thus, the High Court was correct opining in para 17
of the impugned order that the plain and simple
English language should guide that in the promotion
list drawn up that year i.e. the year of promotion, the
names of the subordinate officers have to be entered
and for the purposes of seniority to be so placed at the
bottom of the promotion list drawn up for that year
which, in turn, would imply that the year of the
promotion and not any other year.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 8 of 14

20. In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner, keeping in view his
exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty, was promoted (on ad hoc
basis) as Inspector (Exe.) on out of turn basis under Rule 19(ii) of the
Delhi Police Rules on 17.02.1998. This promotion was antedated with
effect from 02.11.1994 vide order dated 31.12.1999. The out of turn
promotion of the Petitioner was regularised with effect from 02.07.1997,
by an order dated 24.01.2000.
21. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that, the Petitioner made a
representation before the Respondents to antedate his regularization in
promotion after a considerable period of more than 14 years. Thereafter,
upon rejection of the said representations, the Petitioner filed an O.A
before the learned Tribunal. It has been contended that the present
petition does not suffer from delay in latches since the Petitioner made
representations before the authority pursuant to similarly situated
persons being granted the same relief pursuant to orders of this Court. It
is the contention of the Petitioner that the judgment granting relief to
similarly situated officers is a judgment in rem and has produced orders
of the Office of the Commissioner of Delhi Police, where the benefit of
the judgment in GNCTD & Ors Vs. Ravinder Pal ( Supra ), has been
granted to other officers without making any representations.
22. It is well settled that where an employee fails to challenge an
allegedly wrongful action within a reasonable time and acquiesces
therein, but seeks to raise the issue belatedly only upon the success of
similarly situated employees before a court of law, such a claim is not
liable to be entertained. In such circumstances, the employee is treated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 9 of 14

as a fence-sitter, and the doctrines of delay, laches, and acquiescence
constitute valid grounds to deny the benefit of judgments rendered in
favour of others. However, considering the fact that the Respondents
have granted the benefit of the judgment of GNCTD & Ors Vs. Ravinder
Pal ( Supra ) to other officers without making any representations, in the
opinion of this Court, the present case ought to be adjudicated on merits.
23. Adverting to the merits of the present case, a bare perusal of Rule
19 (ii) read with the judgment in GNCTD & Ors Vs. Ravinder Pal
( Supra ), makes it abundantly clear that the official(s) promoted out of
turn in any year shall be placed, for the purpose of seniority, at the
bottom of the Promotion List for the year in which out of turn promotion
is given.
24. Admittedly, the Petitioner has been placed at the bottom of the
Promotion List “F” dated 12.08.1994 i.e. the year in which he has been
granted out of turn ad-hoc promotion (02.11.1994). The seniority of the
Petitioner has also been fixed by placing him at the bottom of the said
list. The same is also evident from the relevant extract of the order dated
09.10.2015, passed by the competent authority, which reads as under: -
“Inspector (Exe.) Rajbir Singh Maiik, No. DI/ 309 was
granted out of turn promotion in the rank of Inspr.
(Exe.) on adhoc basis under Rule-19(ii) of Delhi
Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 w.e.f.
22.11.1994 and his seniority was fixed by placing his
name in the bottom of Promotion List-F (Exe.) dated
12.08.1994 i.e. in the same year in which he had been
granted out of turn promotion which is already in
consonance with the judgement dated 10.06.2011
delivered by the Hon'ble CAT duly upheld by Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 10 of 14

06.05.2013, referred to above. This also dispose off his
earlier representation dated 11.04.2014 received in
this Hdqrs. vide U.O. No.9315/Estt. Br. (DAI/ Sec.,
dated 16.04.2014.”
25. Though the above has not been disputed, the only grievance of the
Petitioner remains that the last officer who was placed in the Promotion
List “F’ dated 12.08.1994, was regularised with effect from 02.07.1997,
and since the Petitioner was placed right below him, he was also
regularised with effect from 02.07.1997. It is the case of the Petitioner
that the Petitioner ought to be placed at the bottom of the list for the year
1994 i.e. which was exhausted in 1994 itself, and not in the promotion
list which exhausts in 1997. It is his contention that the list which
exhausts in 1997 cannot be said to be the list for the year 1994 as per
Rule 19 (ii). The Petitioner contends that he ought to be placed right
below the last officer who has been regularised in the year 1994.
26. As per Rule 19 (ii) and the judgment of GNCTD & Ors Vs.
Ravinder Pal ( Supra ) it is amply clear that the list would be the list
drawn up for that year i.e. the year of promotion and not any other year .
Promotion List “F” dated 12.08.1994 evidently is the list drawn up for
the year 1994 and governs the sequence of promotions as well as the
inter-se seniority of the officers therein. Undisputedly, every officer
placed in Promotion List “F” dated 12.08.1994 had been granted
promotion in the year 1994 itself, though regularized as and when the
vacancies arose. The Petitioner was also granted promotion on ad hoc
basis in the year 1994 for which this Promotion List “F” was drawn, and
thus the contention of the Petitioner that the said list cannot be considered
to be the promotion list for the year 1994, holds no merit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 11 of 14

27. As regards the other aspect, that the promotion of the Petitioner
should have been regularized along with the officers who were
regularized the year 1994 itself, the manner in which the promotions
under the Promotion List “F” were made becomes relevant.
28. It has been brought on record that a total of 337 eligible Sub-
Inspectors (Exe.) were admitted to the Promotion List “F” dated
12.08.1994. Out of which 267 Sub-Inspectors (Exe.) were promoted on
regular basis with effect from 18.08.1994. 21 Sub-Inspectors were given
proforma promotion (on deputation) and promotion of 04 Sub-Inspectors
(Exe.) were deferred for a period of 6 months (punishment of censure).
29. The remaining 45 Sub-Inspectors, in the said list, were promoted
on ad hoc basis on 18.08.1994 to the rank of Inspector (Exe.), however
the promotion of 7 of those officers was discontinued due to certain
reasons. The remaining 38 Sub Inspectors (Exe.) whose names were
already on Promotion List “F” and were given ad hoc promotion to the
rank of Inspector (Exe.) with effect from 18.08.1994.
30. It is pertinent to note that availability of vacancies is sine qua non
to appointment on promotion. In terms of Rule 19(ii), the Petitioner was
rightly placed at the bottom of the promotion list for the year 1994,
however, the said promotion of the Petitioner could only be regularised
after these officers placed above the Petitioner are regularised. Since, the
promotion of the last officer on the list (i.e. from the batch of 38 officers
whose ad-hoc promotion was w.e.f. 18.08.1994, i.e. before that of the
Petitioner) was regularised with effect from 02.07.1997, the promotion
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 12 of 14

of the Petitioner was also regularised from 02.07.1997. The officers
placed in the promotion list can only be regularised as and when a
vacancy arises, and officers who were granted ad hoc promotions prior
to the Petitioner, were only regularised in the year 1997, thus, his
promotion was also rightly regularised with effect from 02.07.1997.
31. Evidently, the Petitioner has not been able to furnish any reason
whatsoever, to demonstrate that he should have been placed above all
these 38 Officers, and regularized before them.
32. Additionally, though it has been urged that similarly situated five
officers namely S.I Niyam Pal Singh, S.I. Raj Kumar, S.I. Rajbir Singh,
S.I. Raja Ram and S.I. Surender Kumar have been granted ad-hoc
promotion in the year 1994 and their promotion was also regularized in
the year 1994, however, it emerges that they were granted out of turn ad
hoc promotion prior to the Petitioner in 15.04.1994 and 05.08.1994, and
were also Sub Inspectors (Exe.) of the batches of 1979 to 1982.
Considering the aforesaid, no case for parity with the aforesaid officers
has been made by the Petitioner.
33. The Petitioner has also sought parity with certain police officials,
namely, Shri Brahmjeet Singh and Baney Singh. It has been pointed out
by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the cases of Shri
Brahmjeet Singh and Banay Singh are quite distinct from the case of the
Petitioner. Both the aforesaid Officers had been placed in promotion
lists, subsequent to the year of their out turn promotion, due to the fact
that no promotion list was drawn up in the year they were promoted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 13 of 14

Pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, both the officers were placed at
the bottom of the promotion list for the year of their out of turn promotion
in accordance with Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police Rules. The Petitioner
has failed to make any specific averments as to how his case is similar to
that of Shri Brahmjeet Singh and Banay Singh, the same has also been
rightly noted by the learned Tribunal.
34. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the view adopted by the learned
Tribunal appears to be a plausible view, and this Court in judicial review
cannot sit as an Appellate Court over the findings arrived at by the
learned Tribunal and substitute its own view. Hence, no interference is
warranted in the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary Writ
jurisdiction.
35. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The impugned order passed
by the learned Tribunal is upheld.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
APRIL 23, 2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:23.04.2026
17:39:37
W.P.(C) 2804/2024 Page 14 of 14