Out-of-turn promotion vacancies must be considered year-wise; clubbing multiple years is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

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

Under Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022, personnel recovering 60 or more missing children (including 25 under age 14) within 12 months are eligible for Out-of-Turn Promotion (OTP)

Despite his recommendation for promotion to Assistant Sub-Inspector in October 2022, the respondents failed to convene an Incentive Committee meeting for the vacancy year 2022

Instead, the respondents clubbed the recommendations for 2022 and 2023 into a single meeting held in November 2023, where the applicant was overlooked in favor of candidates recommended later

The respondents contended that OTP is discretionary, limited to a 5% quota, and based on comparative merit

1. Whether the respondents' failure to convene the Incentive Committee for the year 2022 and the subsequent clubbing of vacancies/recommendations for 2022 and 2023 was legally sustainable

2. Whether the principles of year-wise vacancies and modal calendars applicable to regular Departmental Promotion Committees (DPC) apply to Out-of-Turn Promotions under Rule 19(ii)

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of his case specifically against the 2022 vacancy year

The court primarily applied Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, which allows discretionary out-of-turn promotions for outstanding performance or gallantry, limited to 5% of total vacancies in a given year

It relied on Standing Order No. 252/2019 and Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022, which prescribe eligibility criteria for OTP based on the recovery of missing children

The Tribunal followed the 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 and cannot be clubbed

Furthermore, it acknowledged the principle from Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. SI Satbir Singh, clarifying that while OTP is a special incentive rather than a statutory right, the process of consideration must still be fair and non-arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The Tribunal found that the controversy was settled by its prior ruling in Vinod Kumar, which established that clubbing OTP vacancies across different years is contrary to the statutory framework

It reasoned that failing to hold the 2022 Incentive Committee meeting and merging those cases into 2023 improperly enlarged the zone of consideration, causing prejudice to eligible candidates from the earlier year

The court rejected the defense of "administrative exigencies," noting that non-exercise of statutory power in such circumstances constitutes arbitrariness

It emphasized that although OTP is an incentive, the administration is obligated to follow a structured, time-bound process—similar to regular DPC proceedings—including the preparation of separate year-wise panels to ensure fair consideration for officers who qualify within a specific period

It disposed of the OAs by directing the respondents to convene a Review Incentive Committee to consider the applicant’s case for Out-of-Turn Promotion specifically against the vacancy year 2022

If found fit, the applicant is to be granted promotion with all consequential benefits in accordance with the law

The order must be implemented within six months