O.A. 681/2009, M.A.441/2009, M.A.442/2009. Case: 1. Constable Suresh Chand; 2. Constable Dalel Singh; 3. Constable Shesh Pal; 4. Constable Sant Singh; 5. Constable Rotash; 6. Constable Ramesh Kumar Vs 1. Union of India, Lt. Governor, Delhi; 2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi; 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi; 4. Dharam Pal Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi; 5. Radhey Shyam, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. 681/2009, M.A.441/2009, M.A.442/2009
CounselS. S. Dahiya
JudgesM. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman) & N. D. Dayal (Accounntant Member)
IssueDelhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 - rule19(ii)
Judgement DateMarch 20, 2009
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

M. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)

  1. Six Constables working in the Delhi Police have joined together to file this application. In addition to the official respondents, they have impleaded two of their colleagues as respondents 4 and 5. They have challenged the promotion given to the above officers to the cadre of Head Constables. The impugned orders are dated 07.02.2006 and 03.07.2007. The said respondents have been given ad hoc promotion on out of turn basis. This procedure is authorized under Rule 19 (ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980.

  2. According to the applicants, on the basis of date of entry into service, they are senior to the said respondents and they had put in meritorious service, and when vacancies were available and they were qualified, at the first instance, the eligibility on the basis of seniority ought to have been examined. The impugned orders spells of favoritism being shown to a few, which may not be in the larger interest of just administration. They have also contended that in the matter of merit, and especially attainments in the field of sports, they are not second to others and especially fourth and fifth respondents. Handpicking of names violates their fundamental rights of equality.

  3. Counsel submits that information had been sought from the respondents, since the impugned orders did not reveal the circumstances in which a favourable treatment was given to the incumbents. There was also representation made for promotion, but it is rejected on a stand that there are no vacancies as of now available and their claims will be considered, in due course. The complaint is that their grievances had thus been sidelined.

  4. When there is provision for giving promotion out of turn, as incorporated in the rules, and when the documents indicate that such powers have been...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT