Delhi Police SI Passed Over For Out-Of-Turn Inspector Promotion Because His Citation Came Later; CAT Orders Fresh Review

The applicant, a Sub-Inspector appointed in Delhi Police in 1999, and Respondent No. 4, appointed in 2005, were considered for out-of-turn promotion (OTP) to Inspector under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980.

The Incentive Committee recommended Respondent No. 4, whose citation had been received first; the respondents stated that only one vacancy was available for 2012–13. Respondent No. 4 was promoted on 5 February 2013, while the applicant later received ad hoc and regular promotion. After his representation was rejected, the applicant sought promotion from the date Respondent No. 4 was promoted.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ limitation and representation objections.

Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 permits the Commissioner of Police, with the Administrator’s prior approval and subject to the prescribed 5% vacancy limit, to grant OTP for exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty; it also places OTP promotees at the bottom of the promotion list for the year of promotion.

Seniority in the feeder rank is not the criterion for OTP, and an officer has a right to fair consideration, not a right to promotion; the competent authority must act reasonably, fairly, and in the public interest.

Commissioner of Police v. Sunil Kumar explains the distinction between Rule 19(i) and Rule 19(ii), and that OTP seniority is determined by reference to the year of promotion.

The Supreme Court affirmed the relevant seniority interpretation in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Ravinder Pal.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes the limitation period for applications before the Tribunal.

The application was filed within one year of the order rejecting the applicant’s representation, and the representation and application concerned the same underlying grievance—his promotion and seniority relative to Respondent No. 4.

Although seniority did not entitle the applicant to OTP, the respondents’ stated reason for preferring Respondent No. 4 was the earlier receipt of his citation, not a comparative assessment of the officers’ acts. No rule or standing order supporting that criterion was produced, and the date of receipt was unrelated to the exceptional conduct Rule 19(ii) is intended to reward. The decision was therefore based on an irrelevant consideration and was not a fair or reasonable exercise of discretion.

However, the Tribunal could not itself assess whether the applicant’s role merited OTP, nor could it disregard the vacancy limit or prior-approval requirement; those matters were for the competent authority.

If found fit, the applicant is to receive OTP from 5 February 2013 if an eligible vacancy was available for that year, or otherwise from the date the first subsequent OTP vacancy became available, subject to the required prior approval.

Any resulting seniority is to be fixed under Rule 19(ii) and the cited precedents, without disturbing Respondent No. 4’s promotion; consequential benefits are payable if OTP is granted.

The respondents were directed to issue a reasoned decision within twelve weeks.