JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The question emerges for consideration in this appeal is:- Is it open to the Director General of Police to discriminate between persons similarly situated ? 3. The appellant, a constable in CID (CB) was given commendation role in the year 1999 for his extraordinary work in FIR case Nos. 674/96, 678/96 and 679/96 registered at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur. The appellant collected secret information against accused who committed theft of idols. The appellant received award in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- from Director General of Police, Rajasthan (for short 'DGP') for recovering of idol of Lord Mahaveer and other 24 idols. Grievances of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that in a similar situation constable Khem Singh was given promotion under Rule 28-A of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short 1989 Rules') but the appellant was not so considered. The Appellant in the writ petition sought direction to promote him from the date on which constable Khem Singh was given promotion. Learned single Judge however was of the view that since under Rule 28-A the discretion to promote or not to promote vested in DGP, no mandamus could be issued. Against this finding of learned single Judge that the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellant. 4. It appears that earlier also the appellant filed the writ petition No. 1617/2004 before the learned single Judge, which was decided as under:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, prima facie, I am satisfied that the denial of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Constable as a special case on account of his achievements in the service may not be justified, as one Constable Khem Singh No. 6618 has been given promotion for his performance of recovering only one antique idol, whereas the petitioner made recovery of as many as 24 antique idols and two crowns. However, at this stage, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur with respect to his claim of promotion on the ground of special case and the DGP Rajasthan, Jaipur, shall consider the same and decide his representation within one month from the date of the receipt thereof. Where he is not found eligible and entitled for the same, a reasoned order be passed and copy of the same be sent to the petitioner by registered post A.D. Where decision on the representation goes adverse, the petitioner is granted liberty to apply for revival of the writ petition." 5. Pursuant to the directions the appellant submitted representation before the DGP who vide order dated June 16, 2004 decided the representation of the appellant thus:- (Vernacular matter omitted... Ed.) 6. Evidently reasons have not been assigned as to why the appellant was not found suitable for promotion to the post of Head constable and under what circumstances Khem Singh was promoted. A look at the material on record demonstrates that constable Khem Singh was instrumental in the recovery of one idol, whereas as many as 24 idols got recovered on the basis of secret information supplied by the appellant. 7. In order to find out as to what were the special circumstances under which Khem Singh got promotion, we directed learned Additional Advocate General to place before us the case file of Khem Singh but the same could not be traced. Undeniably, in the matter of Khem Singh, the recovery of one antique idol was made by the Investigating Officer on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but it could not be shown as to what specific role was played by Constable Khem Singh and how his case was distinguishable with that of the case of appellant. 8. It will be useful at this juncture to consider Rule 28-A of 1989 Rules, which reads as under:- "Rule 28. Special nomination for promotion cadre course. 8. It will be useful at this juncture to consider Rule 28-A of 1989 Rules, which reads as under:- "Rule 28. Special nomination for promotion cadre course. - Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (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 service and also have exceptionally good and unblemished record of service with integrity : Provided that no member of service shall be nominated more than once on account of 20 years service as mentioned above." 9. Since promotion file of Constable Khem Singh could not be produced despite our directions, we may infer that the DGP gave promotion to Constable Khem Singh considering his special role in recovering the idol. Although role of appellant in recovering 24 idols also got appreciation from DGP the appellant was awarded only cash prize. Two similarly situated persons were treated differently by the DGP for the reasons best known to him. Nothing has been brought on record to show why Rule 28-A should not be applied in favour of the appellant. The DGP is expected to implement the mandate of Rule 28-A fairly and uniformly. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Gurucharan Singh, (2004)12 SCC 540 observed as under:- "However, at the same time it is clear that the Government having taken a policy decision, must implement that policy decision fairly and uniformly. It is not open to the Government of discriminate between persons similarly situated." 10. It is unfortunate that pick and choose method has been applied by the DGP in implementing Rule 28-A. Even representation of the appellant was not properly considered. No reasons have been assigned as to why the cash award was considered appropriate and why promotion was not given to the appellant. It is unfortunate that pick and choose method has been applied by the DGP in implementing Rule 28-A. Even representation of the appellant was not properly considered. No reasons have been assigned as to why the cash award was considered appropriate and why promotion was not given to the appellant. It is no doubt true that discretion to promote constable to the post of Head Constable vested in the DGP but the discretion ought to have been exercised judicially, fairly and uniformly. It was not open to the DGP to discriminate between the persons similarly situated, The act of DGP in not giving promotion to the appellant is thus violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. 11. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of learned single Judge. The order of DGP in not promoting the appellant to the post of Head Constable is also set aside and DGP is directed to consider the case of the appellant for promotion under Rule 28-A of the 1989 Rules for his police work in special field for the 10% of the vacancies available in the year 2000-01. The DGP shall ensure compliance of this order within 60 days. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******