Pradeep Nandrajog, J.— (Oral)

1. This is a second round of litigation being fought. The first round was fought when all the writ petitioners had individually litigated after filing original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. They were claiming entitlement to be granted out of turn promotion which was permitted as per Rule 19 of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules 1980. The Rule in question required 5% vacancies to be reserved for outstanding sportsmen, marksmen and such officers of Delhi Police who displayed exceptional gallantry or devotion to duty. The Rule envisages the Commissioner of Police to determine the eligible officers and grant them out of turn promotion but with the approval of the Lt.Governor of Delhi.

2. On September 21, 1999 the Commissioner of Police had issued an order constituting a committee to examine cases for out of turn promotion.

3. Taking note of citations, gallantry awards etc. received by the petitioners, the Committee proposed grant of out of turn promotion to the petitioners which was approved by the Commissioner of Police. A few other officers were likewise recommended to be granted out of turn promotion which recommendation was approved by the Commissioner of Police. Promotions were effected but not qua the petitioners and one HC Yashpal and HC Surender. Representations made by the petitioners were ignored. They filed original applications before the Tribunal in the year 2009 which were disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction that a reasoned decision would be taken on the representations made. The Committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police re-considered the matter and opined that the petitioners were not entitled to any out of turn promotion, a view which was challenged by the petitioners once again by filing original applications. The debate before the Tribunal was on two points. Firstly whether the reconsidered opinion to deny out of turn promotion could be sustained, and secondly whether the stand taken by Delhi Police that out of turn promotions could be granted only with respect to 5% vacancies in the year when the act of gallantry/bravery or achieving distinction in sports or a marksman was achieved was correct. And for the latter controversy we may simply note that a justification given in the alternative was that there were no vacancies which had accrued in the year in question and thus the question of reserving 5% thereof for out of turn promotion did not arise.

4. The Tribunal held in favour of the petitioners. The respondents came up to this Court filing 7 writ petitions numbered as W.P.(C) No.5444/2010, W.P.(C) No.5446/2010, W.P.(C) No.5458/2010, W.P.(C) No.5465/2010, W.P.(C) No.5482/2010, W.P.(C) No.5528/2010 and W.P.(C) No.5549/2010.

5. On the subject of the incentive committee, while re-considering the matter, opining that the citations and gallantry awards received by the respondents did not entitle them to having performed acts of bravery, deciding all 7 writ petitions vide judgment dated December 10, 2010 the Division Bench of this Court opined the view to be ex-facie perverse. The language of the citations were noted by the Division Bench which clearly evidences the acts of bravery and exceptional devotion to duty performed by the respondents. The Division Bench highlighted that the first opinion of the Committee had extensively dealt with the roles performed by the respondents while discharging their duties evidencing act of gallantry. On the subject of Rule 19 of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules 1980 wherein 5% vacancies were required to be filled up by out of turn promotions, the Division Bench noted the following words in the Rule: ‘such promotions shall not exceed 5% of the vacancies likely to fall vacant in the given year in the rank.’ In paragraphs 33 and 34 of its opinion, the Division Benc