The 2003 Standing Order conferred no entitlement to out-of-turn promotion in Delhi Police.

Azam Khan, the respondent, had sought out-of-turn promotion under the Delhi Police sports quota.

The Delhi High Court, by order dated 6 November 2023, allowed the writ petition filed by the GNCT of Delhi and set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order granting relief to him, holding that his participation and medals in the National Shooting Championship did not qualify as participation in the National Games under the applicable Standing Order.

The respondent challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 1185/2024. The Supreme Court condoned the delay but dismissed the SLP on 27 February 2024, declining to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.

Thereafter, the respondent filed the present review petition with a delay of 680 days, contending that he had subsequently discovered that Standing Order No. 4 dated 19 October 1989 had been superseded by Standing Order No. 4/2023 dated 29 August 2003.

Whether the review petition was maintainable despite the delay of 680 days and the prior dismissal of the respondent’s SLP by the Supreme Court.

Whether Standing Order No. 4 dated 19 October 1989, which formed the basis of the original judgment, had been superseded by the Standing Order dated 29 August 2003 so as to justify review of the judgment dated 6 November 2023.

Whether the respondent’s achievements in the National Shooting Championship were equivalent to participation in the National Games for the purpose of out-of-turn promotion.

The Court applied the principles governing review jurisdiction, including that review cannot be used to reopen a matter already adjudicated merely because a party seeks to advance a fresh argument after the dismissal of an appeal or SLP.

Standing Order No. 4 dated 19 October 1989 dealt with the recruitment and promotion of sportsmen, whereas the Standing Order dated 29 August 2003 concerned recruitment of meritorious sportspersons to Group C and D posts and did not provide for out-of-turn promotion to the post of Inspector, a Group B post.

The Court further applied the principle that participation in a National Shooting Championship could not be treated as equivalent to participation in the National Games where the governing framework distinguished between the two.

The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the 2003 Standing Order materially undermined the original judgment.

Although the 2003 Standing Order stated that it superseded the 1989 Standing Order, the Court held that it primarily regulated recruitment to Group C and D posts and did not confer a right to out-of-turn promotion to Inspector.

The Court further observed that, in any event, out-of-turn promotion had been discontinued from 2003 onwards.

Independently, the respondent could not succeed because the original judgment had correctly held that medals obtained in a National Shooting Championship did not satisfy the requirement relating to the National Games.

The alleged subsequent discovery therefore did not disclose an error warranting review.

The substantial delay of 680 days and the Supreme Court’s prior dismissal of the SLP also weighed against entertaining the review petition.

It held that the 2003 Standing Order did not create or preserve any entitlement to out-of-turn promotion to Inspector, and that the respondent’s National Shooting Championship achievements were not equivalent to participation in the National Games.

The judgment dated 6 November 2023 remained undisturbed.