Out of turn promotion vacancies must be considered year-wise; clubbing across different years is impermissible.

The Applicant, a Head Constable in the Delhi Police, recovered 70 missing children/persons between July and September 2022, meeting the eligibility criteria for Out of Turn Promotion (OTP) under Standing Order No. 252/2019 and Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022

He was recommended for promotion to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) on 23.09.2022

However, the respondents failed to convene the Incentive Committee for the vacancy year 2022.

Instead, they clubbed the vacancies and recommendations of 2022 and 2023 into a single meeting held in November 2023

Consequently, several candidates recommended in 2023 were promoted while the Applicant was denied

The Applicant challenged this as arbitrary, arguing that 2022 vacancies should have been considered independently and prior to 2023 recommendations

1. Whether the clubbing of Out of Turn Promotion (OTP) vacancies and recommendations from different years (2022 and 2023) is legally sustainable

2. Whether the failure to convene the Incentive Committee for the year 2022, despite the availability of vacancies and eligible candidates, amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power

3. Whether the general principles of Departmental Promotion Committees (DPC), including year-wise segregation of vacancies, apply to OTP cases under Rule 19(ii)

Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, which mandates that OTPs shall not exceed 5% of vacancies in a given year

Standing Order No. 252/2019 and No. Crimes/18/2022 regarding the criteria for recovering missing children

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

The principles of fairness and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

The Tribunal noted that the principal issue—the clubbing of 2022 and 2023 vacancies—was already settled by the precedent in Vinod Kumar

The court reasoned that while OTP is discretionary and falls within a 5% quota, the administration is obligated to maintain a structured, year-wise calendar similar to regular DPCs

By clubbing two years, the respondents artificially enlarged the zone of consideration, forcing 2022 candidates to compete against a larger pool from 2023, which caused "serious prejudice"

The court rejected administrative exigencies as a valid excuse for not holding the 2022 meeting, stating that the non-exercise of statutory power in such circumstances is arbitrary

It held that the respondents should have prepared a separate year-wise panel for 2022 to ensure fair consideration of those who achieved targets in that specific year

The court directed the respondents to convene a Review Incentive Committee specifically for the vacancy year 2022 to consider the Applicant’s case

If found fit, the Applicant is to be granted Out of Turn Promotion with all consequential benefits

The respondents were ordered to implement these directions within six months