HC(Exe.) Arun Kumar Bhati vs GNCT Of Delhi & Ors.

Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J): Brief facts of the case is that the applicant is a citizen of India and is entitled to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. He was appointed as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on 07.06.2009 and, during his service, discharged his duties sincerely and diligently. Owing to his hard work and satisfactory service, he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable (Executive) in November 2021. While posted at AHTU West, New Delhi, the applicant recovered 72 missing children/persons within a period of 12 months, comprising 28 children/persons below the age of 14 years and 44 children/persons between the ages of 14 and 18 years. A citation along with the list of children/persons recovered by him has been placed on record.

It is the applicant’s case that, in view of his exceptional performance, the competent authority, namely the concerned DCP, verified his record and recommended his name for grant of Out of Turn Promotion (OTP) to the rank of ASI (Executive) on two occasions, vide teleprinter messages dated 27.12.2022 and 03.11.2023, in terms of Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022 dated 12.04.2022. The said Standing Order provides, inter alia, that a Constable/Head Constable who recovers 60 or more missing children below the age of 18 years, including at least 25 children below the age of 14 years, within a period of 12 calendar months, may be considered for Out of Turn Promotion, subject to availability of vacancies under the OTP quota. According to the applicant, he fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria and was also clear from the vigilance angle, with no pending criminal case, departmental inquiry, vigilance inquiry, complaint case or suspension against him. He further submits that he had not suffered any major penalty during the preceding three years or the minor penalty of censure during the preceding six months, his ACRs/APARs for the preceding three years were Outstanding/Very Good/Good, and there was no adverse entry or inclusion of his name in the secret list of persons of doubtful integrity.

The applicant further submits that, as per the prevailing practice and instructions, the Incentive Committee was required to meet once in a calendar year for considering eligible cases for Out of Turn Promotion. However, the respondents did not convene the Incentive Committee for the vacancy year 2022, despite more than 18 vacancies earmarked for the OTP quota being available in that year. Instead, the respondents departed from the established practice and clubbed the vacancies pertaining to the years 2022 and 2023 and considered, along with the applicant, a large number of cases of subordinate officers who had been recommended subsequently in 2023. The Incentive Committee ultimately met on 09.11.2023, and several candidates whose recommendations were made in 2023, namely Aditya Kumar, Gaurav Tyagi, Shashi Kant, Ombir, Sanjay Meena, Amit Kumar and Amit, were granted Out of Turn Promotion to the rank of ASI (Executive) vide order dated 11.11.2023, whereas the applicant, despite having been recommended earlier, was not granted promotion.

The applicant contends that his claim ought to have been considered before the cases of persons recommended subsequently. He further came to know that the Incentive Committee had considered the cases of Amit Kumar, FIS No. 28052616, and Amit, FIS No. 28080989, and granted them Out of Turn Promotion even though their names did not figure in the teleprinter messages recommending candidates. According to the applicant, the Incentive Committee thereby adopted criteria of its own and gave preference to an isolated act of bravery rather than continuous and exceptional performance in recovering missing children. It is alleged that by adopting such criteria, the Committee effectively created a separate class within the eligible class of candidates, contrary to the intent and object of the Standing Order. The applicant also contends that, if the Committee could not consider the cases in the relevant year, it ought to have maintained separate year-wise lists so as to preserve the relative position and priority of candidates recommended in different years.

The applicant submits that several candidates recommended subsequent to him were granted Out of Turn Promotion, while his claim continued to be ignored. According to him, such action has had a demoralising effect upon him and defeats the very purpose and object of Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980, which is intended to motivate members of the police force to perform their duties with exceptional dedication and courage.

The applicant thereafter submitted a representation in November 2024 seeking consideration of his claim for Out of Turn Promotion. Pursuant thereto, his name was again recommended for Out of Turn Promotion vide order dated 21.11.2024, wherein his name appeared at Serial No. 50. However, the respondents, vide the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, did not grant him Out of Turn Promotion. The applicant submits that the respondents have not disclosed the comparative merit of the candidates considered by them and have failed to provide any transparent or intelligible basis for overlooking his claim. He alleges that the action of the respondents in preferring other candidates without disclosing the comparative assessment is discriminatory, arbitrary and whimsical and defeats the very object and purpose of the scheme of Out of Turn Promotion.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had admittedly rendered exceptional service by recovering 72 missing children/persons within 12 months, including 28 children below the age of 14 years, and had thus fulfilled the substantive criteria prescribed under Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022 dated 12.04.2022. His claim was duly verified and recommended by the competent authority on 27.12.2022 and again on 03.11.2023. It is argued that the respondents could not have ignored the applicant’s earlier recommendation and granted Out of Turn Promotion to persons whose recommendations were made subsequently, without disclosing any rational or objective basis for according such preference.

Learned counsel further submits that the failure of the respondents to convene the Incentive Committee for the year 2022, despite availability of vacancies under the OTP quota, could not operate to the prejudice of the applicant. According to learned counsel, the respondents, having failed to consider the applicant’s claim in the relevant year, could not subsequently deprive him of his legitimate priority by clubbing the vacancies of 2022 and 2023 and considering candidates recommended in 2023 along with the applicant. It is contended that such a course has resulted in an arbitrary alteration of the applicant’s position vis-à-vis subsequently recommended candidates.

Learned counsel also submits that the Incentive Committee could not evolve criteria of its own which were not contemplated by the Standing Order, particularly by giving preference to a particular isolated act of bravery over sustained and exceptional performance in recovering missing children. Such an approach, according to learned counsel, amounts to introducing an impermissible classification amongst persons who otherwise satisfy the prescribed criteria. It is further submitted that the consideration of candidates whose names did not even figure in the teleprinter messages recommending candidates demonstrates lack of transparency and consistency in the decision-making process.

It is argued that the respondents were required to make a fair, objective and transparent comparative assessment of all eligible candidates and to disclose the basis on which the applicant’s claim was superseded by candidates recommended subsequently. The failure to disclose the comparative merit or the criteria adopted by the Committee, coupled with the grant of promotion to other candidates while overlooking the applicant despite his earlier recommendation, renders the impugned action arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel submits that the applicant’s subsequent recommendation dated 21.11.2024 also demonstrates that his claim continued to merit consideration, yet the respondents again rejected his claim vide order dated 16.04.2025 without furnishing any cogent or transparent reason.

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit submitting that the applicant has attempted to misinterpret Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 and the Standing Orders governing Out of Turn Promotion. It is submitted that the vacancies of ASI (Executive) earmarked for the Out of Turn Promotion quota for the years 2022 and 2023 were not clubbed by the Incentive Committee. The Incentive Committee meeting could not be convened in the year 2022 due to administrative exigencies and non-availability of the required senior officer during the relevant period. It is contended that Rule 19(ii) provides for consideration of promotion against vacancies likely to occur in the given year and does not confer any vested right upon an individual to claim Out of Turn Promotion.

Learned counsel further submits that the date on which the recommendation of a candidate is forwarded by the concerned District/Unit is not, under the applicable Standing Orders, a criterion for grant of ad-hoc promotion on Out of Turn basis. Each case is required to be examined on its own merits, having regard to the nature of duty performed, the contribution made and the overall circumstances of the case, strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and Standing Orders. The respondents contend that they have followed the prescribed objective and transparent criteria and that the applicant, upon relative evaluation of the cases, could not find a place amongst the candidates recommended by the Incentive Committee.

It is submitted that, although the Incentive Committee meeting for the year 2022 could not be held for administrative reasons, the citations received for the years 2022 and 2023 were considered by the Committee in its meeting held from 09.11.2023 to 11.11.2023. The respondents deny that the vacancies for the two years were clubbed and submit that the cases received from various Districts/Units were considered on their respective merits. It is further submitted that citations and recommendations of police personnel are received continuously at Headquarters through the concerned Special Commissioners of Police and that, in the year 2023, as many as 102 cases pertaining to 130 police personnel of different ranks, from Constable to Sub-Inspector, were received for consideration.

As regards the applicant’s case, learned counsel submits that his citation was received at Police Headquarters on 10.10.2023 and was accordingly considered by the Incentive Committee in its meeting held in November 2023 along with other citations. The teleprinter message dated 27.12.2022 did not contain the applicant’s name because his citation itself had been received at Headquarters only on 10.10.2023. The teleprinter message dated 03.11.2023 was issued to the concerned Districts/Units for obtaining fresh reports regarding departmental enquiry, preliminary enquiry, criminal cases, suspension, vigilance enquiry, etc., in respect of the candidates, including the applicant, which was a prerequisite for consideration of the citations by the Incentive Committee. Upon receipt of the requisite reports and relevant documents, the Committee considered the cases during its meeting from 09.11.2023 to 11.11.2023.

Learned counsel also submits that an Incentive Committee had been constituted by the Commissioner of Police vide order dated 18.10.2021 for considering cases of police personnel for Out of Turn Promotion, comprising senior officers of Delhi Police, and that the cases were dealt with by the said Committee up to the year 2024. It is contended that the Committee was competent to assess the relative merits of the cases placed before it and to recommend only those candidates whom it considered most deserving in terms of the applicable Rules and Standing Orders.

With regard to the allegation that the Committee considered the cases of persons whose names were not mentioned in the teleprinter message, learned counsel submits that the citations of Head Constable (Executive) Amit Kumar, No. 554/Crime, and Head Constable (Executive) Amit, No. 211/Crime, were received on 08.11.2023 along with the relevant records from their concerned District/Unit. Consequently, their cases were duly considered by the Incentive Committee in its meetings held on 09.11.2023, 10.11.2023 and 11.11.2023. It is therefore submitted that there was no illegality or irregularity in consideration of their cases.

Learned counsel denies that the Incentive Committee evolved any impermissible criterion or gave preference to a single act of bravery over continuous devotion to duty in recovering missing persons. It is submitted that all citations were considered by the Committee on the basis of their relative merits in an unbiased and fair manner and that the applicant simply could not secure a place amongst the candidates recommended for Out of Turn Promotion. The respondents further contend that the mere fact that some other candidates were recommended does not create an enforceable right in favour of the applicant, particularly when the grant of Out of Turn Promotion is discretionary in nature.

It is further submitted that the applicant’s case was again considered pursuant to his representation dated 08.11.2024. His case was placed before the Incentive Committee and reconsidered in its meetings held on 20.12.2024, 04.03.2025 and 08.04.2025. However, even upon such reconsideration, the applicant could not find a place amongst the candidates recommended by the Committee. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was therefore given due opportunity for consideration of his claim and that his case was examined more than once by the competent expert body.

Learned counsel contends that the date of recommendation by the concerned District/Unit does not confer any priority or preferential right upon a candidate for grant of Out of Turn Promotion. The respondents submit that every case is considered independently on the basis of the nature of duty performed, the contribution of the individual and the overall relative merits of the case. Thus, merely because the applicant’s case was recommended earlier than some other candidates does not entitle him to claim promotion as a matter of right.

It is further submitted that Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 uses the expression “may” and, therefore, the grant of Out of Turn Promotion is discretionary and subject to availability of vacancies. According to learned counsel, the provision does not confer an absolute, vested or automatic right of promotion upon any police personnel merely because he has performed an act falling within the broad parameters of the relevant Standing Order. The Incentive Committee, being an expert body constituted for assessing cases of exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty, is competent to evaluate the comparative merits of the cases placed before it and recommend only the most deserving candidates to the Commissioner of Police for approval.

Learned counsel submits that the Incentive Committee examines the citations and other relevant material and undertakes a relative assessment of the performance of the police personnel before making its recommendations. The final grant of ad-hoc Out of Turn Promotion is thereafter made only upon approval of the Commissioner of Police. It is therefore argued that the applicant cannot claim promotion merely on the basis of the number of missing children recovered by him, since recovery of the requisite number of missing children under Standing Order No. Crime/18/2022 does not, by itself, automatically confer a right to Out of Turn Promotion. Such cases remain subject to availability of vacancies and recommendation by the Incentive Committee.

Learned counsel accordingly submits that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 and the relevant Standing Orders, namely Standing Order Nos. HRD/25/2022 and Crime/18/2022. The applicant’s case was duly considered by the Incentive Committee on more than one occasion, but he could not secure a recommendation for Out of Turn Promotion on the basis of the Committee’s assessment of relative merits. There is, therefore, no arbitrariness, discrimination, lack of transparency or violation of any statutory provision in the action of the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has failed to establish any enforceable right to Out of Turn Promotion and that the present Original Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the pleadings and the material placed on record, we find that the controversy involved in the present Original Application is squarely covered by the judgment of this Tribunal dated 18.03.2026 passed in OA No. 180/2024, which in turn was rendered following the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in OA No. 3765/2023 and batch, Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 18.11.2025.

In the aforesaid judgment dated 18.03.2026, this Tribunal considered an almost identical controversy relating to Out of Turn Promotion in Delhi Police, where the applicant had fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed under Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022 dated 12.04.2022 by recovering the requisite number of missing children, had been recommended for Out of Turn Promotion, but his case was not considered during the vacancy year 2022 as the Incentive Committee was not convened in that year. The vacancies and cases pertaining to the years 2022 and 2023 were thereafter considered together in the Incentive Committee meeting held in November 2023, resulting in the applicant being denied the benefit while persons whose cases had been recommended subsequently were granted Out of Turn Promotion. The Tribunal held that such a course was impermissible and directed year-wise consideration of the applicant's case against the vacancy year 2022.

The principle laid down in the said judgment is that the fact that Out of Turn Promotion is discretionary and that fulfilment of the eligibility conditions does not confer an automatic right to promotion cannot authorise the respondents to disregard the prescribed procedure or to deprive an eligible candidate of consideration against the appropriate vacancy year. The discretion vested in the competent authority has necessarily to be exercised in accordance with the governing Rules and Standing Orders and in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner.

In the present case also, it is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on 07.06.2009 and was promoted as Head Constable (Executive) in November 2021. While posted at AHTU West, New Delhi, he recovered 72 missing children/persons within a period of 12 months, including 28 children/persons below the age of 14 years and 44 children/persons between the ages of 14 and 18 years. Thus, on the face of the record, the applicant satisfied the numerical requirement prescribed under Standing Order No. Crimes/18/2022 dated 12.04.2022, namely recovery of 60 or more missing children below the age of 18 years, including at least 25 children below the age of 14 years within a period of 12 months. The applicant has also placed on record that his service record was duly verified and that he was clear from the vigilance and disciplinary angles.

The applicant specifically asserts that his case was recommended by the competent authority for grant of Out of Turn Promotion vide teleprinter message dated 27.12.2022 and again vide teleprinter message dated 03.11.2023. His further grievance is that although the Incentive Committee was required to consider such cases in the relevant year, no Incentive Committee was convened for the vacancy year 2022 despite availability of vacancies under the Out of Turn Promotion quota. The respondents have themselves admitted that the Incentive Committee meeting for the year 2022 could not be held due to administrative exigencies. Thus, the basic circumstance which was found material by this Tribunal in OA No. 180/2024, namely non-convening of the Incentive Committee for the year 2022, is also present in the case before us.

The respondents have sought to contend that there was no clubbing of the vacancies of the years 2022 and 2023 and that the cases received from different Districts/Units were considered on their individual merits. It is further submitted that the applicant's citation was received at Police Headquarters only on 10.10.2023 and that his name did not figure in the teleprinter message dated 27.12.2022. However, this submission cannot, by itself, displace the applicant's specific assertion regarding the recommendation dated 27.12.2022, particularly when the applicant has relied upon the said document as the basis of his claim for consideration against the vacancy year 2022. The question as to the precise date on which the applicant's citation was received at Headquarters cannot be permitted to operate to his prejudice if the competent authority had already recommended his case for Out of Turn Promotion in December 2022.

It is also significant that the respondents admit that the Incentive Committee was not convened during the year 2022 and that the applicant's case was subsequently considered by the Incentive Committee in November 2023. The mere assertion that the vacancies of the two years were not formally clubbed cannot conclude the matter. What is relevant is whether the failure to undertake the 2022 exercise resulted in the applicant's case being considered along with candidates who became eligible or were recommended subsequently and whether such a course altered the applicant's position to his prejudice. The ratio of the judgment dated 18.03.2026 makes it clear that the respondents are required to maintain year-wise consideration of eligible candidates and cannot allow administrative delay in convening the Incentive Committee to enlarge the field of consideration to the prejudice of candidates who were otherwise entitled to consideration in an earlier vacancy year.

The contention of the respondents that the expression "may" occurring in Rule 19(ii) makes Out of Turn Promotion discretionary is undoubtedly correct as a general proposition. However, the same principle was considered by this Tribunal in the judgment dated 18.03.2026 and it was held that the discretionary nature of Out of Turn Promotion does not authorise the respondents to dispense with fair and year-wise consideration. The applicant may not have an absolute right to be promoted, but he certainly has a right to have his claim considered in accordance with the applicable Rules and Standing Orders against the vacancy year to which his claim relates.

We are also unable to accept the submission that subsequent consideration of the applicant's case by the Incentive Committee in the years 2024-25 has completely cured the defect. The applicant's case was considered pursuant to his representation dated 08.11.2024 in the meetings held on 20.12.2024, 04.03.2025 and 08.04.2025, but the subsequent consideration does not answer the fundamental question whether he was fairly considered against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2022. Once the Tribunal has held that the year-wise consideration of OTP vacancies is necessary, a subsequent general consideration of the applicant along with other candidates cannot substitute the consideration which ought to have taken place for the relevant vacancy year.

The respondents have further submitted that the Incentive Committee is entitled to assess the comparative merits of the candidates and that the applicant cannot claim priority merely because his recommendation was made earlier. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that an eligible candidate does not acquire an automatic right to Out of Turn Promotion merely by satisfying the minimum eligibility conditions and that the competent Committee may undertake a comparative assessment in accordance with the applicable Rules and Standing Orders. However, such comparative assessment has to be undertaken amongst the candidates falling within the appropriate zone of consideration for the relevant vacancy year. The respondents cannot, by postponing the consideration of an earlier eligible candidate, enlarge the field by bringing within the same exercise candidates belonging to subsequent years and thereby defeat the applicant's legitimate right of fair consideration.

The applicant has also alleged that certain persons, including Head Constable (Executive) Amit Kumar, FIS No. 28052616, and Head Constable (Executive) Amit, FIS No. 28080989, were granted Out of Turn Promotion although their names did not figure in the teleprinter messages relied upon by the applicant. The respondents have explained that their citations were received on 08.11.2023 along with the relevant records and were thereafter considered by the Incentive Committee. We do not consider it necessary, in the present proceedings, to return any finding of mala fides merely on this aspect. Nevertheless, the circumstance reinforces the necessity of a fresh and structured consideration of the applicant's case in accordance with the year-wise principle laid down by this Tribunal.

Likewise, we are not inclined to hold that the Incentive Committee necessarily adopted an impermissible criterion by preferring isolated acts of bravery over the applicant's sustained performance in recovering missing children, in the absence of the complete proceedings of the Committee before us. The relative merits of the candidates are within the domain of the competent Committee, subject to the requirement that the assessment is made in accordance with the governing Rules and is not arbitrary or discriminatory. It is, therefore, appropriate that the applicant's claim be placed before a Review Incentive Committee for consideration against the relevant vacancy year rather than that this Tribunal itself undertake the comparative assessment.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the present Original Application is fully covered by the ratio and directions contained in the judgment dated 18.03.2026 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 180/2024 and batch. The material distinguishing feature sought to be relied upon by the respondents, namely that the applicant's citation was received at Headquarters on 10.10.2023, cannot defeat the applicant's claim for year-wise consideration if, as asserted by him and supported by the teleprinter message dated 27.12.2022, his case had already been recommended by the competent authority in 2022. The respondents cannot take advantage of their own failure to convene the Incentive Committee during the vacancy year 2022.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, to the extent that it denies the applicant the benefit of consideration without undertaking a proper year-wise consideration of his claim against the vacancy year 2022, cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside to that limited extent. The respondents are directed to convene a Review Incentive Committee and consider the applicant's case for Out of Turn Promotion against the vacancy year 2022, maintaining separate year-wise consideration of the eligible candidates and vacancies.

The Review Incentive Committee shall examine the applicant's case on the basis of the original record, including the citation, the teleprinter message dated 27.12.2022, the subsequent teleprinter message dated 03.11.2023, his service record, vigilance and disciplinary status and the applicable Rules and Standing Orders. The Committee shall also undertake the requisite comparative assessment amongst the candidates falling within the zone of consideration for the vacancy year 2022. While undertaking such consideration, the applicant shall not be prejudiced merely because his case was not considered at the appropriate time on account of the failure of the respondents to convene the Incentive Committee during the year 2022.

Needless to say, the aforesaid direction shall not be construed as a direction to grant Out of Turn Promotion to the applicant as a matter of right. The applicant's claim shall be assessed on its merits in accordance with the applicable Rules and Standing Orders. However, if upon such consideration he is found fit and recommended for Out of Turn Promotion against the vacancy year 2022, he shall be entitled to the consequential benefits in accordance with law.

The Review Incentive Committee shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken thereon to the applicant forthwith.

The Original Application is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.