Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 413 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-07

CHATRA RAM JAT, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2006
Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Shri Bhanwar Lal who filed a writ petition before the Single Bench claiming promotion from the post of constable to the Head Constable on the basis of Rule 28-A of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 which lays down as follows:- "28. Special nomination for promotion cadre course -Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rules (1) to (3) of Rule 27 above: (a) Nomination for promotion cadre course for next higher rank upto Sub- Inspector in Section I and Section III and upto Platoon Commander in Section II and Section IV of Rule-4 upto 10% of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion in a particular year, may be made by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police in case of those who have shown outstanding work in the anti-dacoity, anti-smuggling or in any special field of police work including performance in Games and Sports, or have put in not less than 20 years service exclusively as member of the service and also have exceptionally good and unblemished record of service with integrity. Provided that no member of the service shall be nominated more than once on account of 20 years service as mentioned above. (b) TheGovernment may nominate for promotion Cadre course upto 10 percent of the vacancies by promotion in a particular year from amongst the member of service holding substantive rank from the rank of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander to Supervisor/ Inspector/Company Commanders rank and from Sub-Inspector/Supervisor to Inspector on the recommendation of the Director General-cum-Inspector General of police who have shown outstanding work in the anti-dacoity, anti-smuggling or in any special field of police work including performance in games and sports or have put in not less than 20 years service exclusively as members of the service and also have exceptionally good and unblemished record of service with integrity: Provided that no member of the service shall be nominated more than once on account of 20 years service as mentioned above." 2. It was his case before the learned Single Judge that in view of the aforesaid rule, the petitioner-appellant herein should have been granted promotion as a matter of right since he had represented India in Fourth International Cycle Polo Championship which was organised in London and had secured first position due to which he had secured Gold Medal. It was his case before the learned Single Judge that in view of the aforesaid rule, the petitioner-appellant herein should have been granted promotion as a matter of right since he had represented India in Fourth International Cycle Polo Championship which was organised in London and had secured first position due to which he had secured Gold Medal. According to his perception, this should have held him entitled for promotion in the Rajasthan Police on the basis of Rule 28-A. 3. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition recording therein that promotions are made purely on recommendations of the Director General of police and the case of the petitioner/appellant having been considered by the respondents, it was not a fit case for interference and hence the writ petition was dismissed against which this appeal has been preferred. 4. The Counsel for the appellant has first of all submitted that the appellant, having participated in Games and Sports where he had secured Gold Medal in International Cycle Polo Championship, should have been granted the promotion as Games and Sports is one of the criteria which qualifies a police personnel to seek promotion. It was further submitted by him that other similarly situated candidate like one Shri Ummed Singh, who is presently working as Sub-Inspector, had been granted two promotions on the basis of a certificate which was granted to him for having participated in Boxing Championship. He has, therefore, sought to make out a case of discrimination against the appellant and has submitted that if a certificate of one game which was boxing could hold a police personnel entitled to grant of promotion, then the petitioner/appellant also should have been granted this benefit as a matter of right. 5 A reply was filed by the Respondent-State on the aforesaid averments and it has been stated therein that the Director General of Police is empowered to give promotion to next higher rank to such persons who had shown outstanding performance in sports and other activities. The same includes activities of a different nature but does not include cycle race. 5 A reply was filed by the Respondent-State on the aforesaid averments and it has been stated therein that the Director General of Police is empowered to give promotion to next higher rank to such persons who had shown outstanding performance in sports and other activities. The same includes activities of a different nature but does not include cycle race. The respondents have stated that for promotion, excellent work is required in the field of checking dacoity, anti smuggling and only certain sports which have been enlisted in the All India Police Games Rule framed under the Subordinate Service Rules 1989 are eligible to be reckoned for promotion of the personnel in the police force. A list of the same has also been given out and annexed to the reply. 6. A perusal of the said list indicates that the games and events, which can qualify for grant of promotion, are Hockey, Volleyball, Basketball, Kabbadi Wrestling, Judo, Boxing etc and it does not include cycle race. It was, therefore, contended that even though the appellant had participated in cycle race, he cannot clam for promotion as a matter of right on the basis of this certificate. 7. Having considered the rival contentions of the Counsel for the parties in the light of Rule 28-A, it is apparent that even if an applicant policeman has participated in some game, he would only become eligible to nomination for promotion after which his case for promotion may be considered. The rule nowhere envisages that such promotion can be granted as a matter of right on the basis of such certificate of participation in a game or sports as the promotions are not time bound promotions where certificate of excellence should weigh with the authorities for such grant and the expression used in the rule also merely states that the Director General of Police may grant such promotions. If it were a case that on the basis of participation in games, promotions were to be granted as a matter of right, in that event the plea of the appellant could have been adjudicated but when participation in certain games is only one of the criteria for selection which merely makes an employee eligible for promotion, the said eligibility cannot be treated as claim for selection as if it were a mandate to the authority to select that candidate. 8. 8. Thus, we find no substance in this appeal and hence it is dismissed at the admission stage itself .