Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1352 (JHR)

Prithivi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2008-11-28

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2008
ORDER The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with retrospective effect from 1.2.1993 with all consequential benefits on the ground that the petitioner is holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ranchi Traffic with effect from 22nd of August, 2005. 2. The facts in brief are summarized as under; The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 1.7.1976 on the basis of a competitive examination conducted by the Bihar Police Service Commission, Patna, and pursuant to training at P.T.C., Hazaribagh, he was posted to various districts and discharged his duties with devotion and dedication. The petitioner submits that he was rewarded for his good service records on various occasions. He was also given cash award of Rs.500/-for maintaining communal harmony. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 1982 and dealt with many important matters and got the crime under control and maintained law and order. His confidential record was equally excellent. According to him he was recommended for President’s Police Medal. Based on the recommendation the petitioner was awarded President’s Police Medal for meritorious service on the occasion of Republic Day in the year 1996. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that having been awarded the President’s Police Medal, he was entitled to out-of-turn promotion in accordance with Rule 660C of the Bihar Police Manual. It is further submitted by the petitioner that his name was recommended for such out-of-turn promotion in the year 1991 vide S.P. Dhanbad’s Memo No. 1976 dated 19.8.1991 and the same was recommended by the Deputy Inspector General, Bokaro but his case was turned down for out-of-turn promotion as per the Central Selection Board held on 27.7.1995. 4. According to the petitioner, his name was again recommended for out-of-turn promotion in 1995 but it was again turned down vide order dated 22.11.1996 by the competent authority which, according to the petitioner, is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Rule 660C of the Bihar Police Manual. The petitioner has cited an example stating that out-of-turn promotion was granted to one Raj Kumar Yadav. The petitioner has cited an example stating that out-of-turn promotion was granted to one Raj Kumar Yadav. .The petitioner has further submitted that the Central Selection Board held in between 9.11.1996 to 11.11.1996 again turned down the claim of the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion, which was again circulated vide Memo no. 8840 dated 4.12.1996. 5. The respondents have submitted in the counter-affidavit that vide Notification bearing No. GSR-1463 dated 4.2.1989 Rule 660C of the Bihar Police Manual in relation to out-of-turn promotion was amended and the benefit of out-of-turn promotion was confined to the persons, who had been awarded President’s Medal or Medal for Gallantry Award and since the petitioner was only granted Police Medal he was not entitled to out-of-turn promotion. 6. I have considered the pleadings and the rival contention/ arguments of the parties. At the very out set it is submitted that Clause 660C of the Jharkhand Police Manual only provides that the Selection Board may recommend out-of-turn promotion to the officers with outstanding records of service and competent authority may order such promotion in deserving cases as they deem fit and proper with the approval of the next higher authority. It also provides that the officers so promoted should be placed below the officers of the approved existing list of respective rank prepared by the Selection Boards. Apart from this, there are five criteria laid down for out of turn promotion in which one of the criteria is “Award of President’s Police Medal” and “Indian Police Medal”, for gallantry and distinguished service. 7. It will be evident from reading the aforesaid provisions that it is not a matter of legal, accrued and vested right to claim out-of-turn promotion and even otherwise it is to be determined based on the criteria laid down and it not mandatory but optional for the Selection Board to consider and recommend such deserving cases based on merits and the respective criteria. In any case, it is directory and not mandatory because the word is ‘may’ and not ‘shall” and further it is a selection based on five criterias as laid down. 8. In any case, it is directory and not mandatory because the word is ‘may’ and not ‘shall” and further it is a selection based on five criterias as laid down. 8. The prayer of the petitioner even otherwise is not sustainable when he prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus or a direction commanding upon the respondents to grant him promotion with retrospective effect from 1.2.1993 when his own case is that he was granted President’s Police Medal in the year 1996 and further his case was considered by the Selection Board and the competent authority and the Central Selection Board rejected his claim for out-of-turn promotion on 27.7.1995 and again on 22.11.1996. The petitioner never challenged those rejection orders or refusal to recommend his name for out-of-turn promotion by the Central Selection Board twice which has, in any case, attained finality and the present writ petition has been preferred in the year 2005 without even challenging the aforesaid rejection order. The petitioner himself submits that he was promoted as Dy.S.P. on 22.8.2005 and thus his claim for retrospective promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. w.e.f. 1.2.1993 is not only illegal, unsustainable but without any basis and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law when he has not even held that post. 9. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in 2005 (2) PLJR page 230 (State of Bihar V. Janardan Prasad Singh) while considering the same Rule 660C of the Bihar Police Manual, by a well considered judgement held that out-of-turn promotion is an exception to the general rule and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It also held that for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. the rules also provide that there has to be consultation with the Public Service Commission. 10. From perusal of Rules 645, 646, 724A and Appendix 71 and 72 it is clear that no provision is there with regard to out-of-turn promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. from the post of Inspector and even otherwise Rule 660C and its sub-sections in the Police Manual deals with out-of-turn promotion up to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and not above. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to cost.