Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1389 (MP)

Virendra Jha v. State of M. P.

2013-11-14

RAJENDRA MENON

body2013
JUDGMENT : Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Petitioner is working as a Sub Inspector of Police and at the relevant time when this writ petition was filed was posted in Narsinghpur. Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by action of respondents in not granting him out of turn promotion in accordance to provisions of Section 70A of the Police Regulation. According to petitioner, on 31.7.2004 when the petitioner was posted in district Balaghat petitioner received certain information through the informer that a notorious criminal namely Shailesh Nai who was said to be available in village Aawala Jhiri in District Balaghat. It is stated that the petitioner along with certain other persons apprehended the said criminal and arrested him. It is stated that criminal tried to attack the petitioner and other police officials also, but by showing extra-ordinary act of bravery petitioner apprehended the criminal. It is further pointed out that award of Rs. 5,000/-was declared by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Balaghat Range for arrest of this criminal. On the ground that the petitioner had showed extra-ordinary bravery in arresting notorious criminal for which he is entitled for out of turn promotion petitioner made a claim and the same having been rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Referring to entries made in daily Roznamcha entered in the police station annexure P-1 indicating acts of petitioner, learned counsel tried to emphasized that the petitioner was entitled for grant of out of turn promotion for his act of bravery, but in an illegal manner without indicating any reason his claim has been rejected. 3. Smt. Bohrey, refuted the aforesaid and submit that claim of petitioner for grant of out of turn promotion was placed before a five member committee headed by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) and the committee conducted its deliberation and on 16.5.2007 vide annexure R-2 after evaluating acts of petitioner, found that petitioner was not entitled for any benefit. 4. It was argued by learned counsel that once a duly constituted committee has evaluated the claim of petitioner and has found petitioner not entitled for promotion, no further indulgence is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 4. It was argued by learned counsel that once a duly constituted committee has evaluated the claim of petitioner and has found petitioner not entitled for promotion, no further indulgence is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Under the statutory provisions as contemplated under Regulation 70-A, out of turn promotion is a extra benefit to be granted to an employee who shows extra-ordinary bravery in the matter of performance of duties. The question as to whether the act of an employee falls in the exceptional category entitling him to grant out of turn promotion is a matter to be considered by the competent authority of the department. The acts of bravery alleged are to be evaluated by the competent authority and a decision taken. This Court cannot interfere with the subjective satisfaction arrived out by the committee and by holding that the decision arrived at is illegal grant benefit. This can be done only if it is seen that an arbitrary and illegal decision is taken contrary to material available on record or the decision taken by the department is such that no prudent man can take such decision, that being the scope of jurisdiction available to this Court. It is thought appropriate to take note of the decision taken by the committee which evaluated the claim and rejected claim vide Annexure R-1 and R-2. Records indicate that a five members committee evaluated the claim of petitioner on 22.3.2005 and on examination of claim it was found that the act of petitioner does not fall in the category of extra-ordinary bravery warranting grant of out of turn promotion. In the document Annexure R-2 with regard to petitioner Shri Virendra Jha it is seen that 5 reasons have been indicated due to which it is held that the claim does not fall in the extra-ordinary category for grant of out of turn promotion. The evaluation made and the reason given by the committee reads as under: 6. There is nothing available on record to show that the aforesaid assessment made by the committee is perverse or unsustainable being contrary to any statutory provisions. The evaluation made and the reason given by the committee reads as under: 6. There is nothing available on record to show that the aforesaid assessment made by the committee is perverse or unsustainable being contrary to any statutory provisions. The committee consisting of senior officers consisting of one Additional Inspector General of Police having examined the claim and for the reasons as indicated hereinabove has refused the claim, now this Court cannot sit over the matter as if it is exercising appellant jurisdiction. Accordingly, the claim having being analyzed and decided by the committee in accordance to law, no further indulgence into the matter is called for, the petition is, therefore, dismissed.