Out-of-turn promotion vacancies must be considered year-wise and cannot be clubbed across different years.

The applicant, a Head Constable in the Delhi Police, recovered 75 missing children (including 58 under the age of 14) between September 13, 2021, and January 6, 2022

Based on this performance, the DCP Rohini recommended him on January 20, 2022, for an Out of Turn Promotion (OTP) to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) under Standing Order (SO) No. 252/2019 and Addendum-III dated December 2, 2021

Despite meeting the eligibility criteria, his name was excluded from the promotion order dated March 31, 2022, as the Incentive Committee erroneously applied the superseded Addendum-I dated August 7, 2020

No Incentive Committee meeting was held for the vacancy year 2022.

Subsequently, the respondents clubbed the vacancies for 2022 and 2023 and conducted a meeting in November 2023 under a new policy (SO Crime/18/2022), where the applicant was again denied promotion while juniors were recommended

1. Whether the respondents’ application of the superseded Addendum-I instead of the prevailing Addendum-III during the 2022 Incentive Committee meeting was legally sustainable

2. Whether the clubbing of OTP vacancies from the years 2022 and 2023 for a single selection process is permissible under the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered for OTP against the vacancy year 2022 based on the policy prevalent at the time he fulfilled the criteria

The court primarily applied Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980, which governs out-of-turn promotions within a 5% quota

It relied on the principles established in Vinod Kumar Ors. v. GNCT of Delhi Ors. (OA No. 3765/2023), which held that OTP vacancies must be considered on a year-wise basis and cannot be clubbed across different years

The court further applied the objective criteria for recovery of missing children as stipulated in Standing Order No. 252/2019 read with Addendum-III dated December 2, 2021

It also referenced the Delhi High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Police Ors. vs SI Satbir Singh, noting that while OTP is an incentive and not a right, the right to fair consideration exists

The Tribunal found that the applicant had fulfilled the specific eligibility criteria of Addendum-III (60+ children, 25+ under 14 years) during the relevant period

However, the Incentive Committee meeting on February 22, 2022, vitiated the process by applying the obsolete criteria of Addendum-I

Regarding the clubbing of vacancies, the Tribunal reasoned that failure to convene the Incentive Committee for 2022—despite available vacancies—and subsequently clubbing them with 2023 vacancies illegally enlarged the zone of consideration, causing prejudice to eligible candidates

The court emphasized that even for discretionary OTPs, administrative authorities must follow a structured, time-bound modal calendar and maintain year-wise segregation of vacancies similar to regular Departmental Promotion Committees (DPC)

The non-exercise of statutory power to hold annual meetings without valid justification was deemed arbitrary and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The court directed the respondents to convene a Review Incentive Committee to reconsider the applicant’s case for Out of Turn Promotion against the vacancy year 2022

This consideration must be strictly in accordance with the criteria set out in Standing Order No. 252/2019 and Addendum-III dated December 2, 2021, as applicable when the applicant fulfilled the eligibility

The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise within six months