Judicial review of DPC assessments is limited absent arbitrariness, mala fides, or illegality.

The applicant was enrolled as a Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police on 15.10.1991 and promoted as Head Constable (Executive) in 2006. His service record contained a “C”/adverse ACR for 2014–15, based, inter alia, on remarks regarding habitual absence, which he disputed on the ground that there was no corresponding absence in the official record.

His name was considered for inclusion in the Promotion List for ASI (Executive) by DPCs held on 20.12.2018, 18.09.2019, 10.06.2020 and 03.06.2021. On each occasion, he was assessed “Unfit”, principally because of the adverse ACR for 2014–15.

The applicant contended that, under Standing Order No. 378/2010, the adverse effect of the ACR could operate only for five years and therefore could not be considered by the 2020 and 2021 DPCs.

The respondents maintained that the DPCs had correctly considered the five relevant APARs for each vacancy year in accordance with the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2017 and Standing Order No. HRD/30/2022. For the 2021 vacancy year, the relevant APARs included 2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18 and 2018–19.

The applicant was subsequently found fit by the DPC held on 02.12.2022, admitted to the Promotion List from that date, and granted ad hoc promotion as ASI (Executive) on 19.12.2022.

His earlier O.A. No. 446/2022 and O.A. No. 3922/2023 had been withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. The present application sought a review DPC and retrospective promotion-related benefits.

Whether the respondents were entitled to consider the applicant’s adverse ACR for 2014–15 while assessing his suitability for promotion in the DPCs held on 10.06.2020 and 03.06.2021, or whether its effect had expired after five years under Standing Order No. 378/2010?

Whether the DPCs acted arbitrarily, illegally or contrary to the applicable promotion guidelines in assessing the applicant as “Unfit” for promotion to ASI (Executive)?

Whether the applicant was entitled to a review DPC and retrospective inclusion in the Promotion List with consequential seniority, promotion and monetary benefits?

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved employee to challenge a service-related decision before the Tribunal.

It applied the principle that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, but no indefeasible right to promotion itself, relying on State of M.P. & Anr. v. Srikant Chaphekar, (1992) 4 SCC 689, and P. Sakthi v. GNCTD & Others, 2025 INSC 620.

The Tribunal further applied the settled rule that judicial review of a DPC’s assessment is limited and interference is justified only where the DPC’s decision is arbitrary, mala fide, capricious or legally infirm.

In this regard, it relied on Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305; UPSC v. Hiranyalal Dev, (1988) 2 SCC 242; Union of India v. K. Rajaiah, (2005) 10 SCC 15; and Union of India v. S.K. Goel, (2007) 14 SCC 641.

The assessment was accepted as having been made on the basis of the applicable framework requiring consideration of the prescribed five APARs for the relevant vacancy year, including the DoPT O.M. dated 08.05.2017 as adopted and clarified by Standing Order No. HRD/30/2022.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s adverse ACR for 2014–15 was included among the five APARs relevant to the 2021 vacancy year. Accordingly, its consideration by the DPC held on 03.06.2021 was treated as consistent with the applicable vacancy-year-wise assessment procedure, rather than as an independently devised or arbitrary method by the DPC.

The applicant’s subsequent fitness in the 02.12.2022 DPC, when the 2014–15 ACR was no longer among the relevant APARs, supported the factual explanation for his earlier non-selection but did not establish illegality in the earlier DPC assessments.

Since the DPCs collectively assessed him as “Unfit” and the record disclosed no manifest mala fides, capriciousness, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity, the Tribunal declined to substitute its own assessment for that of the DPC.

The applicant therefore failed to establish a legal basis for directing a review DPC or granting retrospective promotion.

It found no manifest illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide in the consideration of the 2014–15 adverse ACR or in the DPCs’ assessment of him as “Unfit” for the relevant vacancy years.

The prayer for a review DPC, retrospective inclusion in the Promotion List, seniority, promotion and monetary benefits was rejected.

The O.A. was dismissed as devoid of merit, the connected MAs, if any, were disposed of similarly, and there was no order as to costs.