Mandatory year-wise consideration for out-of-turn promotions precludes clubbing of vacancies across different calendar years.

The applicant, a Head Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police, recovered 78 missing persons (including 41 children under age 14) between April and October 2022

Under Standing Order No. 252/2019 and Standing Order Crimes/18/2022, personnel who recover a specified number of missing children within 12 months are eligible for Out-of-Turn Promotion (OTP) to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI)

The applicant was recommended for OTP on 19.10.2022

However, the respondents did not convene an Incentive Committee meeting in 2022.

Instead, they held a combined meeting in November 2023, clubbing recommendations and vacancies for both 2022 and 2023

The applicant’s case was rejected based on "comparative merit," while candidates recommended later in 2023 were promoted

The applicant challenged this clubbing and the subsequent denial of promotion as arbitrary and discriminatory

1. Whether the respondents' failure to convene an Incentive Committee in 2022 and the subsequent clubbing of 2022 and 2023 vacancies was legally sustainable

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to year-wise consideration for OTP against the 5% quota for the year 2022

Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980, which provides for out-of-turn promotion to encourage outstanding performance, gallantry, or devotion to duty, limited to 5% of total vacancies in a given year

Precedent set in Vinod Kumar Ors. v. GNCT of Delhi Ors. (OA No. 3765/2023), which mandated that OTP vacancies must be considered on a year-wise basis

Principle that administrative discretion must be exercised within the statutory framework and that general DPC principles, including adherence to a modal calendar and year-wise panels, apply to OTP processes

The Tribunal found the issue to be res integra, governed by its prior decision in Vinod Kumar

It reasoned that clubbing vacancies from different years is contrary to the statutory framework because it improperly enlarges the zone of consideration, thereby prejudicing eligible candidates from the earlier year who must then compete against a larger pool

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense of "administrative exigencies" for skipping the 2022 meeting, holding that even if a meeting is delayed, the respondents are obligated to maintain year-wise segregation of vacancies and candidates

It emphasized that while OTP is discretionary ("may"), such discretion does not permit the respondents to ignore procedural fairness or the object of the rule, which is to incentivize exceptional devotion to duty

The respondents' failure to maintain separate panels for 2022 was deemed an arbitrary exercise of power

The Tribunal allowed the OAs and directed the respondents to convene a Review Incentive Committee to consider the applicant’s case specifically against the vacancy year 2022

It ordered that if the applicant is found fit, he must be granted promotion with all consequential benefits within six months of the order

No order as to costs