Delhi High Court
Gnct Of Delhi vs S.I. Devender Kumar on 11 January, 2017
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 217/2017
Date of decision: 11th January, 2017
GNCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate.
versus
S.I. DEVENDER KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate for
Caveator
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 1011-1012/2017
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 217/2017
The Government of NCT of Delhi through the Commissioner of
Police impugns the order dated 7th August, 2015 whereby OA No.3825/2014
filed by the respondent-Sub Inspector Devender Kumar before the Principal
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) was
allowed. The order dated 15th January, 2016, by which the review
application filed by the writ petitioners was dismissed and the order dated
11th November, 2016 passed in Contempt Petition No. 779/2015, have been
also challenged.
2. The respondent-Devender Kumar was appointed as a Constable in
Delhi Police on 15th June, 1989. He earned three out-of-turn promotions as
Head Constable on 3rd June, 2003, as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 30th March,
2006 and as Sub-Inspector on 24th July, 2007 under Rule 19 (ii) of the Delhi
Police (Promotion and Conformation) Rules 1980. The said Rule reads as
under:-
"19. Ad-hoc promotions-
(ii) To encourage outstanding sportsmen, marksmen,
officers who have shown exceptional gallantry and
devotion to duty, the Commissioner of Police may, with
prior approval of Administrator, promote such officers to
the next higher rank provided vacancies exist. Such
promotions shall not exceed 5 per cent of the vacancies
likely to fall vacant in the given year in the rank. Such
promotions shall be treated as ad-hoc and will be
regularised when the persons so promoted have
successfully completed the training course prescribed like
(Lower School Course), if any. For purposes of seniority
such promotees shall be placed at the bottom of the
promotion list drawn up for that year. "
The aforesaid Rule provides accelerated and out-of-turn promotion to
outstanding sportsmen, marksmen and officers, who have shown exceptional
gallantry and devotion to duty.
3. Promotion as Sub-Inspector with effect from 24th July, 2007, was
made pursuant to order dated 16th July, 2009, passed by the Delhi High
Court in W.P. (C) No. 8841/2008, ASI Devender Kumar v. GNCTD and
Ors.
4. The controversy raised in the present writ petition pertains to the
seniority of the respondent viz. those, who were promoted or were appointed
as Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police in normal course. The respondent was
placed at the bottom of promotion list E-1 (Executive) in the seniority list
dated 15th January, 2014, his date of appointment as Sub-Inspector being
taken as 14th September, 2012, notwithstanding the fact that he was treated
as promoted with effect from 24th July, 2007 in terms of the directions given
by the Delhi High Court in the order dated 16th July, 2009 passed in W.P.
(C) No. 8841/2008.
5. This had prompted the respondent to file OA No.3825/2014, which
was decided in favour of the respondent by the first impugned order passed
by the Tribunal dated 7th August, 2015. The Tribunal in this order has
referred to another decision of the Delhi High Court dated 6 th May, 2013 in
Writ Petition (C) No.2414/2012 titled Commissioner of Police & Ors. v.
Sunil Kumar. The Tribunal in their order dated 7th August, 2015, had
directed that the respondent would be placed at the bottom of the promotion
list for the year 2007 i.e. the year in which he was actually promoted to the
post of Sub-Inspector.
6. The petitioner while implementing the said order placed the
respondent at the bottom of the promotion list E-1 with effect from 14th
December, 2007. List E-1 is of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Executive), who
were yet to be notified and promoted as Sub-Inspectors. Aggrieved, the
respondent filed Contempt Petition No.779/2015 stating that the petitioners
have deliberately flouted the orders of the Tribunal by placing the
respondent at the bottom of the promotion list E-1, which consists of
Assistant Sub-Inspectors, who were yet to be promoted and appointed as
Sub-Inspectors.
7. Order dated 11th November, 2016, passed by the Tribunal in the
contempt petition holds that the respondent‟s name should not have been
included in list E-I belonging to Assistant Sub-Inspectors, who were selected
and had to be sent for training and then promoted as Sub-Inspectors on
vacancies that occur in the following year. The petitioners, it was held, were
violating various orders of the Tribunal on the aforesaid question. The
contention that the respondent had been placed below one Kaptan Singh, his
immediate senior, was rejected observing that the respondent was given out-
of-turn promotion under Rule 19 (ii) and had already been appointed as Sub-
Inspector. The petitioners were granted two months time to make faithful
compliance of the order dated 17th August, 2015 by which OA
No.3825/2014 was allowed.
8. The controversy raised by the petitioner, in our opinion, is completely
settled and decided by the decision in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra). This
decision refers to the rule position for promotion of Constables as Head
Constables, Head Constables as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Sub-
Inspectors as Sub-Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors as Inspectors in the normal
course. As per Rule 12, Constables eligible for promotion to the post of
Head Constable have to clear „lower school course‟ and thereupon their
names are entered in List B. As and when vacancies arise, they are then
promoted as Head Constables. As per Rule 15, Head Constables, who are
found fit to be promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector by the Departmental
Promotion Committee are brought on list D-I. They have to clear
„intermediate school course‟ and then their names are entered into list D-II.
Promotions are effected from list D-II as per seniority as and when
vacancies arise in the cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspector. As per Rule 16, the
Assistant Sub-Inspectors, who have completed six years of confirmed
service, are brought and included in list E-II and, as and when vacancies
occurs in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors, they are promoted.
9. In Sunil Kumar‟s case the Division Bench referring to Rule 19 (ii)
observed that the Commissioner of Police with prior approval of the
Administrator can grant out-of-turn promotions upto 5% of the vacancies
likely to fall vacant in the given year in the rank. The persons so promoted
whether as Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors or Sub-Inspectors
need not have already undertaken and cleared the prescribed courses,
namely, lower school course for promotion of Constable as Head Constable,
intermediate school course for Head Constable to be promoted as Assistant
Sub-Inspectors and upper school course to be promoted as Sub-Inspectors.
When Rule 19(ii) applies, the promotion does not have to wait and there is
no need to include the name in either list A or B in the case of Constables,
list D-I or D-II in the case of Head Constables and list E-I and E-II in the
case of Assistant Sub-Inspectors. These lists are prepared for promotion in
normal course and not for promotion under Rule 19(ii). Promotions made
under Rule 19 (ii) are treated as ad-hoc promotions, which are regularized
on successful completion of requisite training. Officers promoted under
Rule 19 (ii) are paid salary as applicable to the promotional cadre even when
they are undergoing the training. They acquire the promotional rank
immediately. Constables included in list A or B, Head Constables included
in list D-I or D-II and Assistant Sub-Inspectors included in list E-I and E-II
till they are actually promoted remain at the lower post and post successful
completion of the training course, as and when vacancies arise they are
promoted either as Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors or Sub-
Inspectors. Upon promotion, they became entitled to salary of the higher
posts.
10. We would like to reproduce the findings of the Division Bench in
Sunil Kumar‟s case, which read:-
15. The view taken by the Tribunal is that the words
"that year" in sub Rule (ii) made it amply clear that for
purposes of seniority of promotees who earned promotion
under Rule 19(ii) of the "Delhi Police (Promotion &
Confirmation) Rules,1980" seniority would be by placing
their names at the bottom of the promotion list drawn up
for that year.
16. We have already indicated above, that keeping in
view the anticipated vacancies which would ensue in the
future, the Delhi Police so organizes sending Constables,
Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors to
undertake the Lower School Course, Intermediate School
Course and Upper School Course respectively, so that as
and when, based upon seniority and upon suitability
being determined, these subordinate officers earn a
promotion. In other words promotions are earned in the
year when vacancies accrue. We have already opined that
the reason why out of turn promotees who earn a
promotion under Rule 19(ii) of the "Delhi Police
(Promotion & Confirmation) Rules,1980" are firstly
given ad-hoc promotion is because an act of bravery,
gallantry and devotion to duty may be an unexpected
event and the officer concerned may not have been
deputed to undergo the promotional course. That is why
the Rule states: "Such promotions shall be treated as ad-
hoc and will be regularize when the persons so promoted
have successfully completed the training course
prescribed". But, for purposes of seniority, the last
sentence of the Rule provides : "For purposes of seniority
such promotees shall be placed at the bottom of the
promotion list drawn up for that year".
17. Plain and simple English language guides us that in
the promotion list drawn up for that year i.e. the year of
promotion, the names of these subordinate officers have
to be entered and for purposes of seniority to be placed at
the bottom of the promotion list drawn up for that year,
meaning thereby the year of the promotion and not any
other year.
18. The Tribunal has reached the right destination.
19. We concur with the reasoning of the Tribunal.
20. It assumes importance to note that Sub Inspectors
who earned promotion as Inspectors under Rule 19(ii) of
the "Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation)
Rules,1980" need not clear any promotional course, for
the reason that the "Delhi Police (Promotion &
Confirmation) Rules,1980" do not envisage any
promotion course to be successfully cleared for Sub
Inspectors to be promoted as Inspectors. In any case,
pertaining to respondent Brahm Jeet Singh there is not
even an issue on fact because the year in which he earned
promotion under Rule 19(ii) of the "Delhi Police
(Promotion & Confirmation) Rules,1980" vacancies
existed and his promotion could not be contingent upon
he (sic.) successfully clearing any promotion course.
21. We give one more additional reason. If we look at sub
Rule (i) of Rule 19 of the "Delhi Police (Promotion &
Confirmation) Rules,1980" we find that if no approved
names are on the promotion lists and vacancies exist, as a
special circumstance the Commissioner of Police may
promote suitable officers in order of seniority to the next
higher rank temporarily and these officers are not entitled
to claim any right for regular promotion or seniority.
Meaning thereby, the Draftsman was conscious of
temporary promotions and the consequence thereof as
envisaged by sub Rule (i) and promotions with
consequences thereof as envisaged by sub Rule (ii) of
Rule 19 of the "Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation)
Rules,1980".
11. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the writ
petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
JANUARY 11, 2017
b/NA/VKR
