Out-of-turn promotion vacancies must be adjudicated on a year-wise basis and cannot be clubbed across different years.

The applicant, a Head Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police, recovered 69 missing children in a single year while posted at the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit

Under Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022, his name was recommended for out-of-turn promotion (OTP) to Assistant Sub-Inspector in December 2022 and November 2023

However, the respondents did not hold an Incentive Committee meeting for the vacancy year 2022. Instead, they convened a combined meeting in November 2023, clubbing 2022 and 2023 vacancies

The applicant was considered but not recommended based on "comparative merit," while several candidates recommended later in 2023 were promoted

The applicant challenged this as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16

1. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily by clubbing the vacancies and candidates of years 2022 and 2023 for out-of-turn promotion instead of conducting year-wise assessments

2. Whether the failure to convene the Incentive Committee for the year 2022, citing administrative exigencies, resulted in a violation of the applicant’s right to fair consideration

The court primarily applied Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (as amended in 2015), which allows for out-of-turn promotions to recognize exceptional gallantry or devotion to duty, capped at 5% of annual vacancies

It also relied on Standing Order No. Crime/18/2022, which sets the benchmarks for recovering missing children to qualify for OTP consideration

the precedent set in OA No. 180/2024 (decided 18.03.2026), which established that OTP vacancies must be considered on a year-wise basis to avoid enlarging the zone of consideration and causing prejudice to eligible candidates

The Tribunal found that the core legal issues were identical to those decided in the batch matter of OA No. 180/2024

It reasoned that while OTP is discretionary and involves the term “may,” the exercise of such discretion must be structured and fair

By failing to hold a meeting in 2022 and subsequently clubbing 2022 candidates with those from 2023, the respondents effectively forced the applicant to compete against a larger, more recent pool of candidates, which diluted his merit and "offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution"

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense of "administrative exigencies" and the argument that 2022 vacancies had "lapsed," holding that such inaction constituted an arbitrary non-exercise of statutory power

It directed the respondents to convene a Review Incentive Committee within four months to reconsider the applicant’s case specifically against the 2022 vacancy year, restricting the zone of consideration to candidates eligible in that year alone

If found fit, the applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and pay fixation

No order as to costs was made