By Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J):-

The facts that arrive for our consideration in the

instant OA are that the applicant was appointed as Sub

Inspector (Exe) in Delhi Police on 21.11.1991. Keeping in

view his exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty, he

was promoted (on ad hoc basis) as Inspector (Exe.) on out

of turn basis under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police

(Promotion

and

Confirmation)

Rules,

1980

w.e.f.

02.11.1994. He was regularized w.e.f. 02.07.1997 by an

order

dated

24.01.2000

(Annexure-A/3).

In

the

meanwhile, a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in its Order

dated

24.03.2011

in

OA

No.2047/2006

and

OA

No.2612/2005 incorporated Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police

(Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980, whereby it

was held that Rule 19(ii) implies that the officers

promoted out of turn in any year shall be placed, for the

purpose of seniority, at the bottom of promotion list of

the year in which out of turn promotion is given. This

decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal was

thereafter challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of

3

Delhi. The Hon’ble High Court did not interfere in the

decision. Thereafter, the respondents preferred an SLP

before the Hon’ble Apex Court. That was also dismissed.

Accordingly, the decision of the Larger Bench dated

24.03.2011 stood confirmed. Thereafter, the applicant

preferred a representation to the respondents to antedate

his regularization in promotion to extend the benefit of

the judgment in favour of the applicant. This

representation has been rejected by the respondents by

way of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the

applicant has preferred the instant OA seeking the

following relief(s) :-

“i)

quash and set aside the impugned

order dated 9.10.2015 placed at Annexure

A/1 and

ii) direct the respondents to regularise the

out of turn promotion of the applicant

w.e.f. the date when he was so promoted

with all consequential benefits.

iii) Award costs of the proceedings and

iv) pass any order/relief/direction(s) as

this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and

proper in the interests of justice in favour

of the applicants.”

4

2.

The case of the applicant is that he should have

been assigned seniority with effect from 1994 i.e. the year

in which his promotion has been given effect to. Learned

counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of GNCTD & Ors. vs. Ravinder Pal in

Civil Appeal No.6283/2015. She draws attention to the

rejoinder to additional affidavit filed on behalf of the

applicant dated 20.03.2023, wherein a list of out of turn

promotees has been given in a tabular form to establish

that all the names contained in the said list had been

given regular promotion which was preceded by ad-hoc

promotion with effect from the year from which the ad-

hoc promotion was extended in their favour.

Drawing

attention to the said list, she submits that the applicant's

promotion has been regularised almost three years from

the date of the ad-hoc out of turn promotion. She further

submits that the respondents have taken a position that

out of turn promotion is to be restricted to only 5%. She

says that the fact that the applicant has been given this

promotion in the year 1994 establishes that the quota of

vacancies within this 5% out of turn promotion existed.

However, the learned counsel argues that the order dated

5

17.02.1998 was further amended by making the

promotion

antedated

w.e.f.

02.11.1994.

The

said

promotion was granted on ad hoc basis and his

promotion was against 5% quota,

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant continuing the

arguments, rebuts the contention of the respondents as

expressed in the additional affidavit filed by them. The

specific issue on which she rebuts the same is non-

availability of vacancies as one of the reasons adduced

by the respondents for non-consideration of the claim of

the applicant for out of turn promotion with effect from

the date from which he is claiming the same. Learned

counsel points out that this is