JUDGMENT 1. - Courage has to be embedded in the character of the police personnel. The courage displayed during the discharge of duty by the police, whether it should always be followed with some award or reward is the question arising for consideration in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner while working as Head Constable No. 130 as a member of team chasing an accused fired one gun shot at the accused Nand Kishre and with the aid of the team that accused was apprehended and therefore, the case of the petitioner was set up for out of turn promotion or giving other award and was recommended by the concerned SHO vide Annex. 10 did. 25.11.2002. The said recommendation was forwarded by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range to the Director General of Police vide Annex. 11 dated 20.1.2003. 3. After consideration of the matter, the Director General of Police appears to have taken a decision on 22.5.2003 to give cash award of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner along with appreciation certificate as conveyed vide Annex. 16 dated 29.5.2008. In the said order, it is also noticed that the petitioner Anop Singh, Head Constable, Police Station Sardar Shahar, Distt. Churu has already been promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in regular course. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. Bhati submitted that since case of the petitioner was recommended for such award on account of extraordinary services rendered by him during the course of that operation, the case of the petitioner deserved to be considered under Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1989). Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989 is quoted below for ready reference "28. Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989 is quoted below for ready reference "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 no member of the service shall be nominated more than once on account of 20 years service as mentioned above." 5. On the other hand, Mr. IS. Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since such out of turn promotion cannot be granted as a matter of course and it is the discretion given to the Director General of Police to consider such cases for appropriate award and in the present case, cash award of Rs. 3,000/- with appreciation certificate was granted by the Director General of Police, petitioner cannot claim any such promotion to the next higher post as a matter of right, it being within the discretion of the Director General of Police, unless such use of discretion is shown to be arbitrary exercise, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. 6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that there is considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. While discharging the duties, the police personnel are required to show needful courage and other abilities with promptitude and may have to even fire at the accused and under such operation, even if some hurt is caused to the police personnel on account of his courageous act and the accused is apprehended, it is the normal discharge of duties of a police personnel. The promotion against 10% vacancies of next higher cadre is to be recommended in the discretion of the Director General of Police, if such authority is of the opinion that person concerned has done outstanding work in the anti-dacoity, anti-smuggling, or in any special field of police work including performance in Games and Sports and such person can be considered for giving such out of turn promotion under this special category. In the present case, the said authority, namely, the Director General of Police appears to have taken a decision vide order dated 22.5.2003 referred to in the letter dated 29.5.2008 (Annex. 16) and instead of awarding promotion to the next higher post, the cash award of Rs. 3,000/- with appreciation certificate was granted to the petitioner. It is of course noted in the said order that regular promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector has already been given to the present petitioner. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and Ors. v. Manpreet Singh and Ors., reported in (1992) 1 SCC 380 while dealing with a case of admissions in Engineering College against reserved categories for wards of those military/para military personnel awarded with certain gallantry decorations like Param Vir/Maha Vir/Vir Chakra, where the petitioner claimed that his father was given Shouiya Chakra which according to him was equivalent to Vir Chakra and High Court allowed the writ petition, the Apex Court allowed the appeals of respondent-University and held as under : "In SLP No. 16065 of 1991 also if the High Court thought that the categorisation was discriminatory and bad it ought to have struck down the categorisation to that extent and directed the authority to re-frame the pule. It would then have been open to the rule-making authority either to merge these two categories or delete one or both of them, depending upon the opinion they would have formed on a review of the situation. The High Court should not have indulged in the exercise of 'switching' the categories and that too without giving any reasons thereafter. Thereby, it has practically assumed the role of rule-making authority, or, at any rate, assumed the rule of an appellate authority. That is clearly not the function of the High Court acting under Article 226. The High Court should not have indulged in the exercise of 'switching' the categories and that too without giving any reasons thereafter. Thereby, it has practically assumed the role of rule-making authority, or, at any rate, assumed the rule of an appellate authority. That is clearly not the function of the High Court acting under Article 226. By directing that category 4 should be treated as category 5 and conversely category 5 should be treated as category 4, the High Court has pre-judicially affected the rights of candidates falling under category 4 without even hearing them. A rule-making authority need not observe the rule of hearing, but the High Court exercising its judicial power cannot dispense with the requirement. The petitioner in SLP No. 16451 of 1991 was entitled to be considered under category 4 (as per the prospectus) whereas by virtue of the High Court's order his category has become category 5, the result of which is that no seat may be left for his category, whereas the said category was entitled to some seats at least according to the Rules as framed and published by the Administration and college. In giving the said direction, while the admission were in progress, the situation has been confounded beyond recall. While acting under Article 226, the High Court does not sit and/or as an appellate authority over the orders/actions of the subordinate authorities/Tribunals. Its jurisdiction is supervisory in nature. One of the main objectives of his jurisdiction is to keep the Government and several other authorities and Tribunals within the bounds of their respective jurisdiction. The High Court must ensure that while performing this function it does not over-step the well recognised bounds of its own jurisdiction." 8. Similarly, in another case of Zora Singh v. Shri J.M. Tandon and Ors., reported in (1971) 3 SCC 834 regarding the claim of a military personnel attached with Sikh Regiment of allotment of land in lieu of land allotted to him in Samundri, now part of Pakistan, held that Commissioner upon a remand by High Court was justified in rejecting his claim. The relevant portion of para 11 to 13 of the judgment is quoted below "That takes us to the third contention which is now based on the additional evidence adduced before the High Court. The relevant portion of para 11 to 13 of the judgment is quoted below "That takes us to the third contention which is now based on the additional evidence adduced before the High Court. It is amply clear from that evidence that whenever a gallantry award is granted it would be entered in the sheet-roll maintained by the company in which the awarded is serving, and the fact of such an award having been granted would be announced in the Government Gazette There was no such entry and no such announcement in the Gazette in the case of the appellant But apart from the gallantry award the military authorities also used to give awards for meritorious service. Realising that the appellant's case for a gallantry award was unsustainable, counsel shifted his case and sought to argue that the appellant had been the recipient of an award for meritorious service and was granted the said land in Samundri in lieu thereof. 12. There are, however, two major difficulties against such a contention. The first is that no record was produced showing such an award for meritorious service although the appellant got an opportunity to lead additional evidence before the High Court and some of the witnesses examined by him were military officers belonging to his Company. The second difficulty is that according to the evidence of Lachhman Singh, the Senior Records Officer of the Sikh Regimental centre at Meerut, whenever an award is given for meritorious service an entry regarding it would be made in the sheet-roll maintained by the company and a medal only, and not land, is awarded. He was emphatic that no order within his knowledge was ever passed during the World War 11 granting land to persons for meritorious service. Further, no award for meritorious service could have been granted to the appellant. Rule 543 of the Regulations produced by Subedar Mohan Singh of the Sikh Regimental Center at Meerut lays down that an award for meritorious service can be given only if the per-son to whom it is to be awarded has served for at least 18 years. The award in such a case is in the form of an annuity and not land. The appellant had not put in 18 years of service but only service for 14 years. That being so, no such award for meritorious service could have been granted to him. The award in such a case is in the form of an annuity and not land. The appellant had not put in 18 years of service but only service for 14 years. That being so, no such award for meritorious service could have been granted to him. He could not produce any record because he could not have been granted such an award in view of the fact that he had not put in the requisite qualifying service. Besides, his service could not have been regarded as meritorious as the record of his service produced by Subedar Mohan Singh revealed that he had been given punishments on as many as seven occasions, some of which were on charges such as theft, insubordination, absentism, etc. 13. On this evidence, as also on the evidence that was before the Commissioner, it is clear that the appellant was not and could not have been a recipient either of a gallantry award or an award for meritorious service. Nor could he have been granted any land at Samundri in respect of which he had claimed land here after partition. The Commissioner, therefore, was right in cancelling the allotment made in his favour as also the permanent rights acquired by him in consequence of that allotment. The High Court consequently was right in refusing to quash the Commissioner's order and dismissing the writ petition." 9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Srikishan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in while dealing with the case of driver of a train who brought home the train from enemy territory was directed to be considered for giving gallantry award in terms of Rajasthan Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grants) Rules, 1966. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference : "1. During the Indo pak war of 1971 the petitioner was Driver of the first train that carried vital supplies for the Jawans fighting in enemy territory. The train while performing shunting at Khokharapar (Pakistan) faced a repeated bombing and strafing attacks by enemy air crafts causing considerable damage to a large number of coaches and rail-borne tanks. During the Indo pak war of 1971 the petitioner was Driver of the first train that carried vital supplies for the Jawans fighting in enemy territory. The train while performing shunting at Khokharapar (Pakistan) faced a repeated bombing and strafing attacks by enemy air crafts causing considerable damage to a large number of coaches and rail-borne tanks. The petitioner stuck to his post undeterred and continued to perform his duties even during these attacks and succeeded in removing the train to a safe distance and also completed the placement of water tanks and other wagons containing vital supplies before backing his train to Munabao (India). His Excellency the President of India looking to the commendable courage and exemplary sense of duty award gallantry decoration "Shaurya Chakra". 7. In precise the issue that requires adjudication is application of the Rules of 1966 for a "gallantry award holder" who is neither a member of defence service nor enrolled with police services. 8. As per Rule 7 of the Rules a holder of gallantry award or his heirs are entitled for cash reward and grant of land. The Rules nowhere refer or make the grant dependent to defence or police service. As a matter of fact the term "defence service" is not used in entire set of Rules except in preface. The preface is not part of the Rules, and therefore, it cannot be regarded as an independent source of any substantive power or express provision in the Rules or by implication there from. The Rules nowhere prohibit for grant of reward and land to a gallantry award holder who is otherwise eligible but not a member of defence service. The State Government, therefore, wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner under the Rules of 1966, 10. The term "defence service" is neither interpreted under the Act of 1956 nor is defined under the Rules but it is certainly used in preface. It is a known law of interpretation that every word and sentence used must have some meaning and at the same time it is also well established that if a word or sentence purporting to express a subordinate idea clashes with principal idea the former must adjusted to the later or must be disregarded altogether and if there is irreconcilable contradiction between the two provisions having equal force, the provision more in accordance with the equity should be adopted. As stated above the term "members of defence service" is not used in the Rules of 1966 but is used only in its preface and that is also not defined under the Act of 1956 as well as under the Rules of 1966. The terms "gallantry award" and "holder of gallantry award" are defined under the Rules of 1966. The cash award and grant of land also relates to these terms under Rules 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules of 1966. It is pertinent to note here that the gallantry awards referred in sub- rule(1) of Rule 2 of the Rules are instituted by the President of India to acknowledge outstanding courage and bravery of the persons participating in war. Participation of a person in a war is not dependent to the employment or enrolment with military or police service. The grant of gallantry award is a recognition of outstanding courage and bravery and object of the Rules is to award such recognition. The principal object of the Rules, therefore, is to award and felicitate the gallantry award holders. It is well known that during war beside the members of defence service people belonging to different discipline of life actively participate and exhibit outstanding courage bravery and sacrifice. The interpretation of the Rules of 1966 put forwarded on behalf of the State Government as a matter of fact shall frustrate the object of the Rules, that is to reward the persons with conspicuous acts of gallantry and are awarded gallantry decorations by the President of India. In the present matter the petitioner though was not a member of defence service (the term only used for military service) but he certainly participated in a defence action and his participation was not only acknowledged but was rewarded by none else than the President of India by decorating him with "Shaurya Chakra". What it appears that the term "members of the defence service" in preface of the Rules of 1966 virtually means the members who participated in defence action. Thus, the petitioner being a person who participated in defence action is having entitlement to be dealt with as per the Rules of 1966." 10. However, this Court is of the opinion that the said decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court does not apply to the facts of the present case. Thus, the petitioner being a person who participated in defence action is having entitlement to be dealt with as per the Rules of 1966." 10. However, this Court is of the opinion that the said decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court does not apply to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the present case also does not arise under the aforesaid Rules of 1966 as it is not the case of grant of land or gallantry award under these Rules. 11. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner could not have claimed promotion to the next higher post which was already given to him in the regular course or promotion to still higher post as a matter of right on account of such extraordinary work done by him, recommendations were made by two of the authorities above and the order of the Director General of Police exercising the discretion vested in him does not require any interference and in the absence of any such mandatory statutory rule for grant of such out of turn promotion, this Court cannot issue any mandamus as prayed for in the present writ petition. Accordingly the present writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******