Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJ
Rajbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Police – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2804/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. S. Hooda, Shaurya Banshtu
For the Respondents: Radhika Bishwajit Dubey

Out-of-turn promotion rules require placing beneficiaries at the bottom of the seniority list for the year of promotion, but the actual regularisation of such promotion remains strictly contingent upon the availability of vacancies within the established sequence of the promotion list.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Out of turn promotion - Seniority fixation - Regulations stipulate that personnel granted out of turn promotion due to special achievements must be placed at the bottom of the promotion list drawn up for the specific year of such promotion. (Para 17, 19)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope and ambit - High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine findings of fact arrived at by tribunal unless the order is shown to be perverse, illegal, or logically unsustainable. (Para 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the antedating of the regularisation of an out-of-turn promotion granted decades prior, challenging the denial of seniority relative to other officers. The petitioner argued that the promotion list for the relevant year should be interpreted as one exhausted within that year and that regularization should have occurred similarly to cohorts in other lists. The relevant authority had placed the petitioner at the bottom of the designated promotion list for the year of promotion, regularizing the service only when the specific vacancies for that list sequence became available.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the placement of the petitioner at the bottom of the promotion list for the relevant year was strictly in accordance with service regulations. Regularisation of an ad hoc promotion is contingent upon the availability of actual vacancies. Because the petitioner was positioned after other officers already on the list, the regularisation could only occur once those officers' vacancies were settled, which spanned until a later year. No disparity was established as compared to other officers.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the regulation regarding the placement of out-of-turn promotees at the bottom of the yearly promotion list entitles a candidate to automatic regularization independent of vacancy availability and whether the court should interfere with the administrative fixation of seniority.

Ratio Decidendi: Out-of-turn promotion rules necessitate placing the beneficiary at the bottom of the promotion list for the year of promotion, but this does not override the fundamental requirement of vacancy availability for regularisation. Administrative decisions on seniority fixed based on an established list are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction unless demonstrably arbitrary. (Paras 26, 30, 34)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of administrative history and petition origins. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. conflicting claims regarding seniority and rule interpretation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. rule 19(ii) requires seniority linked to the promotion year. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 26)
4. adjudication of claims despite initial administrative delay. (Para 21 , 22)
5. regularization follows vacancy and seniority-based ranking. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. standard of review and final order dismissal. (Para 34 , 35)

J U D G M E N T

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 22.12.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereafter ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 4276/2015. The Petitioner’s challenge to the rejection of his representation for grant of seniority from an earlier date was dismissed by the impugned order.

2. Succinctly stated, the Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in the Delhi Police on 21.11.1991. In recognition of his service, he was granted an out-of-turn ad hoc promotion to the rank of Inspector (Exe.) on 17.02.1998 under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereafter ‘Delhi Police Rules’). Subsequently, by order dated 31.12.1999, the said out-of-turn promotion was antedated with effect from 02.11.1994. Thereafter, the Petitioner’s promotion was regularised with effect from 02.07.1997 vide order dated 24.01.2000.

3. Thereafter, in the year 2014, the Petitioner preferred a representation to the Respondents seeking antedating of his regularisation in promotion to 02.11.1994, i.e., the date from which his out-of-turn promotion had been given effect, along with all consequential benefits.

4. However, the said representation was rejected by the Respondents vide order dated 09.10.2015. The relevant portion of the rejection order is reproduced as under: -

“The representation dated 14.09.2015 submitted by Inspector (Exc.) Rajbir Singh Malik, No. D-I/309 for fixation of his seniority in the rank of Inspector by extending the benefit of judgement dated 06.05.2013.delivered. by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.6626/2011- Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Brahmjeet Singh & Ors. has been considered in this Hdqrs. It has been found that the representationist was granted out turn promotion in the rank of Inspr. (Exe ) on adhoc basis under Rule-19(ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules 1980 w.e.f 22.11994 and his seniority was fixed in the bottom of Promotion List-F (Exe.) dated 12.08.1994.

It has also been found that the Hon'ble CAT vide common judgement dated 10.06.2011 in O.A. No. 2612/2005- Brahmjeet Singh Vs. UOI & ors. and in another similar OA directed to fix the applicants’ seniority with reference to the year in which they have been given out of turn promotion by placing their names at the bottom of the respective promotion lists of the year in which out of turn promotion has actually been given to them. The said order of the Hon'ble CAT has also been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dated 06.05.2013 in CWP No. 6626/2011 - Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Brahmjeet Singh & Ors. and the same has been challenged by the department in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11470/2014.

Inspector (Exe.) Rajbir Singh Maiik, No. DI/ 309 was granted out of turn promotion in the rank of Inspr. (Exe.) on adhoc basis under Rule 19(ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 w.e.f. 22.11.1994 and his seniority was fixed by placing his name in the bottom of Promotion List-F (Exe.) dated 12.08.1994 i.e. in the same year in which he had been granted out of turn promotion which is already in consonance with the judgement dated 10.06.2011 delivered by the Hon'ble CAT duly upheld by Hon'ble High Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIAnil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJRajbir Singh – AppellantVersusCommissioner Of Police – RespondentW.P.(C) 2804/2024

Out-of-turn promotion rules require placing beneficiaries at the bottom of the seniority list for the year of promotion, but the actual regularisation of such promotion remains strictly contingent upon the availability of vacancies within the established sequence of the promotion list.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJ
Rajbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Police – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2804/2024