Subsequent adjustment of promoted candidates creates no vacancies for next-in-merit candidates.

The applicants, Constables (Executive) in the Delhi Police, participated in the Promotion List “A” Test–2015 for promotion to Head Constable (Executive), against 495 notified vacancies.

Initially, 473 candidates were declared selected, and the applicants claimed that approximately 30 candidates later shifted from the 2015 list to the 2014 list pursuant to Review DPCs, thereby creating vacancies which ought to have been offered to the next candidates in merit.

The respondents stated that all 495 vacancies had ultimately been accounted for—473 regular selections, 9 out-of-turn promotions, and 13 sealed-cover cases—and that the Review DPCs for 2014 merely altered the promotional year and seniority of 15 candidates who were already occupying the relevant posts.

During the proceedings, it was also established that all applicants had subsequently attained the rank of Head Constable, though through different modes and at different times.

Whether the shifting of candidates from Promotion List “A”–2015 to Promotion List “A”–2014 pursuant to Review DPCs created vacancies which were required to be offered to the next candidates in merit, including the applicants.

Whether securing the cut-off mark of 114, without selection under the applicable tie-breaking criterion, conferred upon the applicants a right to inclusion in Promotion List “A”–2015.

Whether, in the absence of a statutory or departmental provision for a waiting list, the applicants could claim retrospective inclusion in the 2015 promotional list.

Whether the applicants were entitled to retrospective promotion, seniority, pay or other consequential benefits despite having subsequently attained the rank of Head Constable.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a next-in-merit candidate may be considered only where a duly selected candidate fails to join, refuses appointment, or an actual notified vacancy remains unfilled, subject to the governing rules and instructions.

It held that securing minimum or cut-off marks does not create an indefeasible right to promotion where the number of candidates securing the same marks exceeds the available vacancies and selection is governed by a prescribed tie-breaking criterion.

The Tribunal also relied on the principle that retrospective inclusion or operation of a waiting list cannot be claimed as of right in the absence of a statutory rule, departmental instruction or applicable provision requiring the preparation or operation of such a list.

The authorities relied upon by the applicants, including Prakash Choudhary v. Delhi Police , DSSSB v. Rajni , and earlier Tribunal orders, were treated as applicable only where an actual vacancy remained unfilled and not where posts were already occupied.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ case rested on the assumption that the subsequent transfer of 15 candidates from the 2015 list to the 2014 list released 15 vacancies.

That assumption was rejected because those candidates had already been promoted and were occupying the relevant posts; the Review DPC merely changed the promotional year and seniority attached to them, without creating or releasing vacancies.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ explanation that all 495 vacancies had been accounted for through regular selections, out-of-turn promotions and sealed-cover cases.

The applicants’ reliance on the 114-mark cut-off was also insufficient, since other candidates had obtained the same marks and the applicants were not within the relevant next 15 candidates according to the disclosed merit position.

Since no actual unfilled vacancy or enforceable waiting-list provision was established, the precedents concerning consideration of next-in-merit candidates were held inapplicable.

Although subsequent promotion did not automatically extinguish a potentially valid claim for retrospective inclusion, the applicants failed to establish any legal basis for such inclusion or consequential benefits.

The subsequent shifting of 15 candidates to the 2014 list affected only their seniority and promotional year and did not create vacancies.

Securing 114 marks did not confer a right to retrospective inclusion, and no waiting-list mechanism was legally available.

Since all applicants had also subsequently attained the rank of Head Constable, their prayer for present promotion was substantially infructuous.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.