Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13399

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Dr. Sumeet Jerath, A
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Gnctd – Respondent
Original Applications Nos. 3765/2023|3876/23|659/24|692/24|3870/23|3873/23|3875/23|3897/23|3899/23|3900/23|3901/23|657/24|658/24|678/24|679/24|685/24|686/24|691/24|692/24|916/24|917/24|918/24

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Ms. Ridhi Dua
For the Respondents: Mr. Jalaj Agarwal, Mr. RK Jain, Dr. Geetanjali Sharma, Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. Hilal Haider, Dr. LC Singhi, Mr. Ashish Rai, Mr. Jung Bahadur, Mr. Rohit Khanna, Ms. Deepa Rai, Mr. Subodh, Ms. Sauraan, ASI Bhahampal Singh, SK Karan Singh, Mr. SN Verma

Arbitrary alteration of promotion criteria and clubbing of vacancies across years violate established rules and principles of fairness and equality in promotions.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 - Rule 19(ii) - Out-of-Turn Promotion (OTP) - Denial of consideration based on arbitrary clubbing of vacancies across two years - The Tribunal observed that clubbing vacancies from different years contravenes statutory provisions aiming to reward meritorious service - The respondents were held to have acted contrary to established guidelines and statutory mandates designed to ensure fairness in promotion practices. (Paras 36-42)

(B) Promotion - The eligibility criteria for OTP include completion of prescribed service periods and exceptional performance, which must be transparently adhered to - Arbitrarily altering existing criteria or clubbing separate year vacancies violates principles of justice and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, directly impacting meritorious applicants. The court mandated adherence to statutory performance criteria in future promotions. (Paras 33-35, 42)

Facts of the case:
Various police personnel applied for Out-of-Turn Promotion under the Delhi Police rules, alleging arbitrary denial of promotions based on discriminatory practices and failure to adhere to established criteria. They argued that the clubbing of vacancies across years violated statutory mandates.

Findings of Court:
The inclusion of multiple years' cases in the OTP consideration diluted the merit-based framework and limited the applicants’ chances of promotion, resulting in discrimination. The Tribunal ordered the review of applications and directed adherence to statutory requirements for OTP.

Issues: The main issues pertained to the legality of the clubbing of OTP eligibility criteria across years and the overall transparency and fairness of the promotion process.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that equitable promotion practices must align with established statutory provisions that delineate criteria for OTP, ensuring no arbitrary shifts in performance recognition undermining deserving candidates' promotional opportunities.

Result: The OAs were allowed, and directions were issued to consider the applicants for OTP strictly in accordance with the established rules.

Table of Content
1. promotion eligibility based on performance. (Para 2 , 3)
2. allegations of arbitrary promotion process. (Para 4 , 5)
3. need for consistent criteria in promotions. (Para 33 , 39)
4. illegality of clubbing year-wise promotions. (Para 36 , 38)
5. court's directive for review of promotion cases. (Para 42)

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The issue in all these Original Applications is the same and hence with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the captioned OAs have been heard together and are being disposed of this common order. However, for writing the present order, the facts are being taken from OA No. 3765/2023 (Vinod Kumar) treating the same as the lead case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police on 06.04.2009 and was promoted to the rank of Head Constable (Executive) on 12.09.2018. He has maintained a clean service record with no vigilance, disciplinary, or criminal proceedings pending against him. Between 21.04.2022 and 04.08.2022, while posted at Police Station Kishan Garh, the applicant apprehended 82 Proclaimed Offenders (POs)—42 involved in ‘A’ category (heinous) offences and 40 in ‘B’ category (IPC) offences. As per Standing Order No. L&O/17/2022 dated 08.02.2022, a Constable or Head Constable who apprehends 80 POs (including at least 40 from ‘A’ category) within one year becomes eligible for consideration for Out-of-Turn Promotion (OTP) to the next higher rank, subject to the availability of vacancies. In line with this, the SHO, PS Kishan Garh, recommended the applicant’s name on 02.09.2022, and his vigilance clearance and other documents were forwarded to the competent authority on 08.09.2022.

3. However, the respondents did not conduct the Incentive Committee meeting that was to be held on 1st January 2023 for considering recommendations made during the year 2022, despite the fact that 18 vacancies of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) were available under the OTP quota for that year. Instead, in November 2023, the respondents clubbed the OTP vacancies of 2022 and 2023 and considered the cases of additional officers recommended in 2023 along with those of 2022. A combined Incentive Committee meeting was held on 09.11.2023, and on 11.11.2023, several officers recommended in 2023 were granted Out- of-Turn Promotion to the rank of ASI (Executive), while the applicant’s name was left out.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the clubbing of vacancies for two separate years is contrary to the Standing Order and established practice. He further submits that the Incentive Committee introduced a new and unauthorized criterion—giving priority to those who apprehended POs involved in murder cases— which is not provided for in any existing rules or guidelines. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents’ actions were arbitrary, discriminatory, and motivated by favoritism towards certain officers serving in the Special Cell and Crime Branch.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants argues that the aforesaid inaction on the part of the respondents not only violates Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 2015, which seeks to encourage officers showing exceptional devotion to duty, but also disregards the long-standing practice of giving precedence to officers who nab specified numbers of POs over those recognized for single acts of gallantry. In essence, the applicant maintains that he met all the prescribed criteria for Out-of-Turn Promotion but was unfairly excluded due to arbitrary and biased decision-making, and he seeks that the case of the applicant be considered for promotion to the rank of ASI (Executive) with effect from the year 2022, when he first became eligible.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents state that the Incentive Committee meeting for granting Out of Turn Promotion (OTP) could not be held in 2022 due to administrative rea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13399

Arbitrary alteration of promotion criteria and clubbing of vacancies across years violate established rules and principles of fairness and equality in promotions.

Cases Referred (3)