Discretionary out-of-turn promotion requires fair, year-wise consideration; administrative delay cannot prejudice eligible candidates.

The applicant, a Head Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police, was appointed as a Constable on 07.06.2009 and promoted as Head Constable in November 2021. While posted at AHTU West, he recovered 72 missing children/persons within 12 months, including 28 below the age of 14 years and 44 between 14 and 18 years.

Under Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022 dated 12.04.2022, recovery of at least 60 missing children below 18 years, including 25 below 14 years within 12 months, could qualify an officer for consideration for Out of Turn Promotion (“OTP”).

The applicant’s case was allegedly recommended for OTP by teleprinter messages dated 27.12.2022 and 03.11.2023. He contended that the Incentive Committee was not convened for the vacancy year 2022, and that the 2022 and 2023 cases were subsequently considered together in November 2023.

The applicant was again recommended in November 2024, but his claim was rejected by order dated 16.04.2025.

The respondents argued that OTP was discretionary under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980, that recommendation dates did not confer priority, and that the applicant’s case had been considered by the Incentive Committee on several occasions on the basis of comparative merit.

Whether the respondents’ failure to convene the Incentive Committee for the vacancy year 2022, followed by consideration of the applicant’s case along with candidates considered subsequently, violated his right to fair and year-wise consideration for OTP?

Whether the applicant’s fulfilment of the eligibility criteria under Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022 created an automatic right to OTP, or only a right to consideration against the relevant vacancy year?

Whether the subsequent consideration of the applicant’s case in 2024–25 cured the procedural defect arising from non-consideration against the 2022 vacancy year?

Whether the Incentive Committee was required to undertake a structured comparative assessment among candidates falling within the zone of consideration for the 2022 vacancy year?

The Tribunal applied Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980, as amended in 2015, under which OTP is discretionary and subject to the applicable rules, recommendation of the competent committee and availability of vacancies.

It relied on Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022 dated 12.04.2022, which prescribed the relevant eligibility benchmark for recovery of missing children, while clarifying that satisfaction of the benchmark did not automatically confer promotion.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in OA No. 180/2024, decided on 18.03.2026, and Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors., OA No. 3765/2023 and batch, decided on 18.11.2025, which established that discretionary OTP must nevertheless be considered fairly, non-arbitrarily and year-wise, and that administrative failure to convene the Incentive Committee cannot prejudice an eligible candidate’s consideration against the appropriate vacancy year.

The competent committee may undertake comparative assessment, but only among candidates falling within the proper zone of consideration for the relevant vacancy year.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had prima facie satisfied the numerical eligibility criteria by recovering 72 missing children/persons, including 28 below the age of 14 years, and that his service and vigilance record had been verified.

The respondents admitted that no Incentive Committee was convened for 2022 due to administrative reasons.

Although OTP was discretionary and the applicant had no automatic right to promotion, he possessed a right to fair consideration against the vacancy year to which his claim related.

The subsequent consideration of his case in November 2023 and again in 2024–25 did not cure the failure to consider him against the 2022 vacancies, because such later consideration potentially enlarged the field by including candidates from subsequent years and altered his position to his prejudice.

The Tribunal therefore held that the respondents were required to conduct a fresh, structured and comparative assessment among candidates falling within the 2022 zone of consideration.

It declined to determine the comparative merits itself or to hold that the Committee had necessarily adopted an impermissible criterion, leaving that assessment to a Review Incentive Committee.

The respondents were directed to convene a Review Incentive Committee and consider the applicant’s OTP claim against the 2022 vacancies, maintaining separate year-wise consideration of eligible candidates and vacancies.

The Committee was directed to examine the original record, including the applicant’s citation, teleprinter messages dated 27.12.2022 and 03.11.2023, service record and vigilance/disciplinary status, and to complete the exercise within six months.

The order did not direct grant of promotion; if the applicant was found fit and recommended for OTP against 2022, he would receive consequential benefits in accordance with law.

The Original Application was disposed of without costs.