The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Clause 15 of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 allow for review of DPC proceedings under certain conditions, and the guidelines/instructions for DPCs (Promotion) must be adhered to by the concerned parties.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Union Public Service Commission as well as learned counsel for Union of India.

2. The present petition has been filed with a prayer that the review DPC may be held in case of the petitioner. The orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow dated 15.1.2015 and 19.3.2015 respectively have been put to challenge. The claim of the petitioner for review DPC by means of which the Tribunal without commenting on the merit of the application for holding review DPC directed the Union Public Service Commission to consider the application and dispose of the same within a period of four months. After passing of the aforesaid order, the opposite party considered the said application and rejected the same on 30.3.2015, (which is also under challenge) by stating therein that there is no provision for any review DPC and as such review DPC cannot be held.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Regulation 5(5) of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 (for short the 'Regulations'). Further ground has been taken that the review of the select list which has been approved by the Commission has been ignored by the Government of India. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance of Regulations, the guidelines/instructions in respect of DPC's (Promotion) have been framed by the DOPT in pursuance to the Regulations of 1955 and therein a provision has been made under Clause 15 for review of DPC and therefore, the opposite parties are supposed to take into consideration of the aforesaid instructions/guidelines but they failed and refused to consider the case of the petitioner for the year 2009-10 as it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was having censure entry in respect of the year 2004 but so far as the entry of 2005 that has been quashed by the Tribunal by means of judgment and order dated 2.1.2013.

4. Learned counsel also submits that the Principal Bench of Delhi has also passed an order in Original Application No.830 of 2015 (Abha Singh vs. Union Public Service Commission & ors) wherein a direction was issued in the case of Abha Singh (Supra) for considering her case in the review DPC. The said judgment has been accepted by the Union of India and candidate therein Abha Singh has been considered and promoted to IPS cadre. The submission is that the case of the petitioner is on identical lines and reliance which has been placed upon Clause 15 of the instructions/guidelines, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have considered the case of the petitioner for review DPC, instead of rejecting the claim by means of order dated 30.3.2015. Further submission is that last five years entries are to be taken into consideration in view of the guidelines/instructions dated 23.12.2005 wherein in Clause 4 under the Heading "Span/scope of Assessment" the said provision has been made. The instructions/guidelines have been framed with a view to implement the rules in a fair and just manner and also with a view to mark promotion process workable by implementing the rules. The guidelines/instruction consisted of several situations and they are supporting and having been issued in pursuance to the rules and as such they are liable to be adhered by the opposite parties.

5. The learned counsel for opposite parties on the other hand has submitted that there is no provision for review as contemplated under the Regulations and therefore, the review DPC cannot be held.

6. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. For considering the aforesaid question as to whether review DPC is permissible under the instructions/guidelines or not and whether the instructions are being followed by the opposite parties, it is to be noted that opposite parties are continuously following and adhering to the process laid down in the guidelines/instructions, in pursuance to Clause