Union of India v. Banty Yadav

Delhi High Court · 23 Jul 2026 · 2026:DHC:5988-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Vinod Kumar
W.P.(C) 10054/2026
2026:DHC:5988-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order disallowing clubbing of out of turn promotion vacancies across years and directed reconsideration of the respondent’s promotion against 2022 vacancies only.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 10054/2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 10054/2026, CM APPL. 46794/2026, CM APPL.
46795/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma and
Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Advs.
VERSUS
BANTY YADAV & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
ORDER (ORAL)
23.07.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 10 December 2025 passed by the Tribunal in OA 3535/2024.

2. The lis before the Tribunal pertained to the entitlement of the respondent to out of turn promotion in terms of Standing Order L&O/17/2022 issued by the Delhi Police. The respondent was not found fit. However, while arriving at this decision, out of turn promotion vacancies for the year 2022 and 2023 were clubbed. W.P.(C) 10054/2026

3. The Tribunal has found, unexceptionably, that clubbing of vacancies was not permissible, and that the respondent’s case ought to have been considered against the vacancies available in 2022.

4. We do not find any cause to interfere with that decision, which is correct in law.

5. In so far as the directions contained in the impugned order are concerned, the Tribunal has not directed that the respondent should be granted out of turn promotion. All that has been directed is that his case should be considered against the vacancies available for the year

2022.

6. Needless to say, the petitioners are expected to examine the case of the respondent dispassionately, keeping in mind the applicable guidelines.

7. We, therefore, do not deem this to be a case to interfere with the impugned order.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. JULY 23, 2026