ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider and grant out of turn promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Constable on the basis of his bravest and extraordinary act performed in an incident dated 16.1.2008 where the notorious dacoit Bunty alias Virendra s/o Gangaram Gurjar died. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 16.1.2008 an encounter between the police party and gang of dacoit Bunty Gurjar took place in which petitoner was also the member of the police party and was serving on the post of Constable. On account of his brave action as he shot down the dacoit Bunty Gurjar and said dacoit died, the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri on 24.4.2008 recommended for his promotion out of turn. The contention of the learned counsel is that although three persons, namely, Kedar Singh, Arun Kumar and present petitioner Bhupendra Singh were recommended for promotion out of turn, but, only Arun Kumar has been given out of turn promotion whereas the petitioner has been benefited by award of cash Rs. 2,000/- only. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an arbitrary manner his candidature to promote him out of turn has been rejected. 4. On the other hand, Smt. Patankar, learned Government Advocate submits that the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri was later on amended on the basis of the amended recommnedation as the petitioner was not found fit to be promoted out of turn and therefore, rightly he has not been given promotion out of turn. It has also been put forth by her that out of the availability of the vacant posts, a quota of 10% has been fixed to promote out of turn the eligible police candidates and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be promoted out of turn. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. The relevant Clause 70-A of the M.P. Police Regulations reads, thus: “Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 70, a Constable may be promoted of the rank of Head Constable by the Superintedent of Police with the prior approval of the Director General of Police and Head Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector by the Deputy Inspector General of Police with the prior approval of the Director General of Police if he has distinguished himself in anti dacoity operations, law and order situations of shooting competitions or in some other field of duty or who has been awarded the President’s Police Madel for Gallantry or for meritorious/distinguished services, if he considers him suitable for promotion. Similarly the Inspector General of Police may promote an Assistant Sub-Inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector and a Sub-Inspector to the rank of an Inspector on similar grounds if found suitable for promotion and subject to the prior approval of the Director General of Police. The number of Officers promoted under this Regulation shall not exceed 10 per cent.” 7. On bare perusal of the letter dated 2.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) of Superintendent of Police, Dist. Shivpuri addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior it is gathered that strong recommendation was made for three persons serving on the post of Constable. Thier names are Kedar Singh, Arun Kumar and present petitioner Bhupendra Singh. In the recommendatory letter it was strongly stated that on account of gunshot fire of the Constable including the present petitioner the dacoit Bunty Gurjar had died. Further it has been mentioned that for last four years the present petitioner Bhupendra Singh Tomar is deputed for “To Extinguish the Dacoit Project”. However, on perusal of Annexure R-2 which is a letter of Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri in reference to the letter of the Inspector General of Police to make certain necessary amendment in the recommendation, the name of the petitioner has been left out. 8. According to me, the procedure so adopted by the department is wholly arbitrary, since strong recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police. It appears that on account of the verdict given by the Inspector General of Police, the recommendation was amended deleting the name of the petitioner. 9. 8. According to me, the procedure so adopted by the department is wholly arbitrary, since strong recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police. It appears that on account of the verdict given by the Inspector General of Police, the recommendation was amended deleting the name of the petitioner. 9. At this juncture, it would be condign to quote the recommendation which was made by Superintedndent of Police in his letter (Annexure P-1) which reads, thus :- ^^MdSrksa us buds mij tku ysok Qk;fjax dh ftlls rhuksa vkj{kd cky&cky cps ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Hkh vkj{kd HkwisUnz] vkj{kd v:.k] vkj{kd dSnkj us vkxs c<+dj MdSrksa ij Qk;j fd;s ftlls ,d MdSr /kjk’kk;h gks dj fxj x;kA ‘ks”k MdSrksa ds gkSalys vc ,d lkFkh ds fxjus ,oa QkslZ ds }kjk yxkrkj tcjnLr Qk;fjax djus ij iLr gks x;s rFkk MdSr taxy esa Hkkxus yxs ftudk ihNk fd;k x;k ysfdu ?kuk taxy ,oa va/ksjk gksus ds dkj.k ‘ks”k MdSr Hkkxus esa lQy jgsA MdSrksa dh vksj ls Qk;j vkuk can gksus ij ckjhdh ls lfpZax djus ij ?kVuk LFky ij ,d O;fDr dk ‘ko feyk ftlds ikl ,d 12 cksj dh nqukyh canwd rFkk pys gq;s 6 dkjrwl iM+s Fks nqukyh canwd [kksy dj ns[kus ij nks [kkyh [kks[ks csjy esa Qals gq;s feysA e`rd dh dej esa dkys jax dk iV~Vk ftlesa 05 ftUnk dkjrwl rFkk ,d fel jkmaM 12 cksj dk yxk FkkA yxHkx vk/kk ?kaVs pyh eqBHksM+ esa MdSrksa dh vksj ls djhc 50&60 jkmaM Qk;j fd;s x;s rFkk iqfyl dh rjQ ls djhc 103 jkmaM Qk;j fd;s x;sA mDr MdSrksa }kjk iqfyl ikVhZ ij tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls voS/k gfFk;kjksa ls Qk;j fd;s x;sA ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk ckftc gksxk fd bl lkgfld eqBHksM+ esa ‘kkfey vkj{kd 119 HkwisUnz flag rksej xr 4 o”kksaZ ls yxkrkj nL;q mUewyu dk;Z esa layXu gksdj iw.kZ yxu] fu”Bk ,oa bZekunkjh ls dk;Z dj jgk FkkA fu’p; gh bl lkgfld iqfyl eqBHksM+ esa vkj{kd 119 HkwisUnz flag rksej Mdsr xSax dk izeq[k nqnkZUr lnL; MdSr cUVh xqtZj mQZ ohjsUnz iq= xaxkjke xqtZj ftl ij gR;k ds iz;kl] vigj.k] ywV] MdSrh tSls xaHkhj vijk/k iathc) Fks] rFkk bldh fxjQrkjh gsrq mi iqfyl egkfujh{kd Xokfy;j jast Xokfy;j }kjk 10]000 :i;s dk buke ?kksf”kr fd;k x;k Fkk dks /kkjk’kk;h djus esa vnE; lkgl] ‘kkS;Z] lw>cw> ,oa vuqdj.kh; ijkdze dk ifjp; fn;k x;k gSA vr% eSa iqfyl v/kh{kd f’koiqjh vkj{kd 119 HkwisUnz flag rksej dks mDr lkgfld o ljkguh; dk;Z ds fy;s dze ls iwoZ inkSUufr fd;s tkus dh iqjtksj vuq’kalk djrk gWwA** 10. It would be germane to mention here that in the recommendation only the name of Bhupendra Singh Tomar was recommendation but he has not been given out of turn promotion. 11. Here it is also pertinent to quote the relevant extract of the amended recommendation of the Supreintendent of Police, Shivpuri as contained in Annexure R-2, which reads, thus :- ^^ vc izdj.k esa Jheku ds lanfHkZr i= ,oa nwjHkk”k ij gqbZ ppkZuqlkj la’kksf/kr izLrko Hkstus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k x;k gSA vr% d`i;k leh{kk mijkar eqBHksM+ esa ‘kkfey vkj- 337 v:.k dqekj Fkkuk flVh dksrokyh f’koiqjh ,Mh LDokM dks dze ls iwoZ inksUufr fd vuq’kalk dh tkrh gSA** 12. The case of the present petitioner appears to be similar to that of contable Arun Kumar who has admittedly been given promotion out of turn. Hence, I am of the view that arbitrarily the case of the petitioner has been rejected and he has not been given promotion out of turn. 13. So far as the availability of the post is concerned, it is not the case of the respondent that the posts of Head Constables are not lying vacant and even if they are lying vacant, within the limit of quota of 10% the name of the petitioner cannot be included. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the name of the petitioner to provide him promotion out of turn in terms of Regulation 70-A of the M.P. Police Regulations. Let the decision be taken on or before 30.4.2012. 15. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.