JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of the Single Bench dated 11.04.2011 whereby the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.05.2008 denying special promotion to the appellant from the post of Constable to Head Constable has been dismissed. 2. The appellant was posted as Constable at police station Shastri Nagar and is stated to have played important role in solving two blind murder cases and in view of exemplary work done by him, his case was recommended on 02.02.2007 by the concerned Station House Officer for special promotion on the post of Head Constable, to the Superintendent of Police. Later, when the appellant was posted at Bhatta Basti police station, he is said to have arrested two criminals who were absconders for which he was rewarded with Rs. 1,000/- in cash. The SHO Police Station Bhatta Basti, also recommended the case of the appellant for gallantry award as well as special promotion on the post of Head Constable. The Superintendent of Police is stated to have further recommended the case of the appellant for special promotion to the Inspector General of Police who finally sent the case of the appellant with positive recommendation to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan. However, the claim of the appellant for special promotion was rejected by the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) Rajasthan vide order dated 30.05.2008 which was impugned in the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case of the appellant for special promotion had been arbitrarily rejected while the cases of other Constables who were less meritorious than the appellant had been approved and they had been granted promotion to the post of Head Constable. He has further submitted that in the similar circumstances when the case of a deserving candidate had been rejected, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Yunus Khan v. The State of Rajasthan and ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 399/2005), decided on 30.01.2008 , had set aside the order rejecting special promotion and had directed the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner therein. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the case of the appellant had been duly examined and as he was not found to be meritorious for special promotion, the same was denied to him. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the case of the appellant had been duly examined and as he was not found to be meritorious for special promotion, the same was denied to him. He further submitted that the cases of other Constables which have been cited by the appellant were on altogether different footing as they had performed outstanding work in the discharge of their duties. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. At the outset, we deem it necessary to reproduce Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1989”) which provides for special promotion as under: “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 up to Sub Inspector in Section I and Section III and up to Platoon Commander in Section II and Section IV of Rule 4 up to 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 of 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.” 7. It is, thus, evident that the Director General of Police is authorised to provide out of turn promotion on the basis of outstanding work in anti dacoity, anti smuggling or in any special field of police work including sports to the police officers till the rank of Sub-Inspector. 8. The rule is apparently intended to reward police personnel who perform exceptionally in the discharge of their duties or in the field of sports. 9. The assessment of the candidates who would be suitable for special promotion, in terms of the rules, is the prerogative of the Director General of Police. 8. The rule is apparently intended to reward police personnel who perform exceptionally in the discharge of their duties or in the field of sports. 9. The assessment of the candidates who would be suitable for special promotion, in terms of the rules, is the prerogative of the Director General of Police. The court would not be equipped to assess the relative merit of the candidates and interference with the decision of the Director General of Police would be called for only if it is patently arbitrary or discriminatory. The appellant has cited several instances of other constables who had been granted out of turn promotions and who are alleged to be less meritorious than him. In response to this averment of the appellant, the respondents have the details of other Constables who had been granted promotion with regard to outstanding or exemplary work they had done. The chart showing achievements of other candidates is annexed along with the Additional Affidavit filed by the respondents as Annexure AF-R-4/1. The translated copy of the chart furnished by the learned counsel for the respondents is reproduced hereunder: S. No. File No. Name of Employee/officer to whom special promotion has been granted Detail of work due to which special promotion has been granted 1 N-3(43) A. Sha/Inam/Jaipur City (North)/2006 Shri Vijendra Singh, Belt No. 5036, District Jaipur City (North) Jaipur from Constable to Head Constable on special promotion In prosecution Case No. 39/06 for the offences under Section 302, 201 IPC police station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur dated 11.2.2006 Constable Virendra Singh No. 5036 was included in the team constituted for identification of an unidentified dead body which was found in an isolated area in a bale and for searching the accused. Constable inquired from the persons involved in the trading of onions as the bale recovered from the place of occurrence as he smelled onion from the bale recovered. Constable showed his intelligence and skills and traced out the dead person Pappu @ Ishwar Das and on the basis of same after collecting information constable found the wife of the dead person and her lover Kishan Chand @ Devgoda involved in the murder of dead person. For the excellent and commendable work of getting the accused arrested the constable was granted special promotion. For the excellent and commendable work of getting the accused arrested the constable was granted special promotion. 2 N-3 (08) A. Sha/Inam/Jaipur City (North)/2007 Shri Radheyshyam, Belt No. 945, District Jaipur City (North), Jaipur from Constable to Head Constable on Special promotion. In prosecution Case No. 149/06 for the offences under Section 302, 394 IPC police station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur dated 3.7.2006 Constable Radheyshyam No. 945 was included in the team constituted for searching the goods stolen and accused involved in the murder cum robbery case of the jeweller's wife Jaishree Devi. Constable inquired from the carpenter Shanker Jangid working at the place of occurrence and after inquiring in a psychological manner from Shankar Jangid constable cracked down the case of murder and arrested the accused and thereafter further arrested the other accused Shaukin from village Vapati Khurd police station Charthawal District Muzafarnagar (UP). For the excellent and commendable work of getting the accused arrested the constable was granted special promotion. 3 N-3(64) A. Sha/Inam/Jaipur City (North)/2001 Shri Amar Singh, Belt No. 493, District Alwar to Head Constable on special promotion. In prosecution Case No. 243/01 for the offences under Section 353, 333, 307/34 IPC police station Sadar District Alwar Constable arrested notorious and awarded criminal Karamveer @ Vikas even after sustaining bullet injury. For this excellent and commendable work of getting the accused arrested the constable was granted special promotion. 4 N-3 (153) A. Sha/Inam/Jaipur City (North)/2007 Shri Shabbir Khan, Belt No. 3448, Jaipur City (North) Jaipur from Constable to Head Constable on special promotion In prosecution Case No. 13/07 & 138/07 police station Kotwali Jaipur city (North) Constable Shabbir Khan No. 3448, Jaipur City (North) Jaipur provided information where after accused were arrested and 2 golden necklace and 2 pair tops were recovered and arrested one accused and recovered 22 motors, 47 ceiling fans, 49 electric press and from this gang 41 gas cylinders, 4 pumps, 4 cartoon soap were recovered and material of nine cases of theft were recovered. For getting the accused involved in the vehicle theft case and for recovering 5 stolen scooters and motor cycles the constable was granted special promotion for such excellent and commendable work. 5 N-3 (54) A. Sha/Inam/Jaipur City (South)/N-3 (171) A. Sha/Inam/Jaipur City (South)/ 2007 2006 1. Shri Gajraj Singh, Constable 3326, 2. Shri Daya Ram, Constable No. 1455, Jaipur City (South), Jaipur. 5 N-3 (54) A. Sha/Inam/Jaipur City (South)/N-3 (171) A. Sha/Inam/Jaipur City (South)/ 2007 2006 1. Shri Gajraj Singh, Constable 3326, 2. Shri Daya Ram, Constable No. 1455, Jaipur City (South), Jaipur. (Special promotion from Constable to Head Constable) Shri Daya Ram Constable No. 1455 and Gajraj Singh Constable No. 3326, District Jaipur City (South) were specially appointed for keeping surveillance and mitigating the crimes involving theft of vehicles and other serious crimes in Jaipur City which were increasing day by day. Both the constables gathered information from their own resources and in criminal case No. 87/06 under Section 379 IPC police station Ashok Nagar got arrested Mukut Meena, Pappur @ Saleem, Mukesh Singh and others and recovered from them 16 motor Cycle, 4 car, 1 jeep and done recommendable work and did commendable work. In case No. 333/05 police station Sodala they got arrested the accused and recovered diamond and gold ornaments and further kept constant vigil over the affairs of the accused involved in hawala matters and got them arrested and recovered Rupees 38 lacks. In case No. 40/06 they got the accused arrested and recovered large quantity of scooters for police station Ashok Nagar, Vidhyadhar Nagar and also arrested 10 accused in 8 matters of mobile theft of Sadar Sodala. For this excellent and commendable work they were granted special promotion. 6 N-3 (171) A. Sha/Inam/Jaipur City (South)/2007 Shri Sultan Singh, Constable No. 3398, Jaipur City (South) Jaipur. (Special promoted from Constable to Head Constable) In prosecution Case No. 97/06 for the offences under Section 302, 394 IPC police station Ashok Nagar which involved the murder of guard of Mahaveer School and also involved robbery of 20-25 rupees where unknown criminals ran away with the robbery amount the case was solved on the basis of the pieces of bidi which were found at the place of occurrence which were of West Bengal. In the said matter while investigating the constable stayed in West Bengal for one and half month as under cover and inquired about the matter and after collecting strong evidences against Shyam Biswas and Subhankar he arrested them from West Bengal Ranadhar. In criminal case No. 120/05 for the offences under section 399, 402 IPC police station Ashok Nagar he got arrested four accused and also recovered two Indian Pistol (Deshi Katte) and 5 gold chains. In criminal case No. 120/05 for the offences under section 399, 402 IPC police station Ashok Nagar he got arrested four accused and also recovered two Indian Pistol (Deshi Katte) and 5 gold chains. In criminal case No. 118/05 he got the accused arrested and recovered asthdhatu sculpture. In criminal case no. 70/05 for offences under Section 8/20 NDPS Act he got the accused arrested and recovered 16 kilogram of Hashish (Ganja). In criminal case No. 275/2004 for offences under Section 379 IPC police station Ashok Nagar he recovered 4 motor cycles from Sethi Gang and 6 motor cycles from Vikram Meena's Gang. In criminal case No. 194/06 for offences 457, 380 IPC police station Ashok Nagar he got arrested the ragman (Kabadi) and recovered 5 quintal of copper. For raiding 3 offences of Excise Act, 4 relating to Arms Act and for solving more than 100 cases relating to such acts including theft, robbery and murder the constable was granted special promotion for his excellent and commendable work. 10. The respondents have further stated in the reply that the exemplary work which is cited by the appellant was in fact attributable to team effort which led to unearthing the crime and nabbing the criminals. In the case of Constables who were granted special promotions, their efforts were individual and hence they had been granted promotion ahead of the appellant. There is no doubt that the case of the appellant had been recommended by the superior officers for grant of special promotion but ultimately the decision was taken at the level of Director General of Police to reject his case.11. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment in the case of Mohammad Yunus Khan v. State of Rajasthan (supra) is misplaced as it is distinguishable on facts from the instant case. The petitioner therein had got 24 idols recovered on the basis of secret information by him while another Constable who had been granted out of turn promotion was instrumental in recovery of only one idol. The Division Bench had directed the production of file in the case of Constable who had been given out of turn promotion but it was not produced being untraceable. It was in those circumstances that the court directed the special promotion to the appellant therein as the recovery of 24 idols by him was held to be exemplary.12. The Division Bench had directed the production of file in the case of Constable who had been given out of turn promotion but it was not produced being untraceable. It was in those circumstances that the court directed the special promotion to the appellant therein as the recovery of 24 idols by him was held to be exemplary.12. In the wake of the details of the work done by the other successful Constables, as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, we do not find it a fit case to interfere with the decision taken by the Director General of Police in denying special promotion to the appellant as it cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory.13. However, we do find that although rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989 does confer power on the Director General of Police to give special promotion for outstanding work, but at the same time it is necessary to have guidelines which should be followed while exercising the power under Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989.14. We are of the view that it is of utmost importance that there should be detailed guidelines which lay down objective criteria to assess the relative merit of those who have to be given out of turn promotion. Outstanding work in the field of anti dacoity, anti smuggling or in any special field of police work including sports as stipulated in the rule appears to be too general and wide. In the absence of any guidelines, it is apparent that such a power for out of turn promotion seems unfettered and unbriddled and could lead to arbitrariness and misuse. This is all the more necessary as the police personnel especially at the lower ranks have to perform arduous tasks of immense responsibility and, therefore, it is necessary that they should be treated in a fair manner by their superiors. Even in the case of Mohammad Yunus Khan v. State of Rajasthan (supra), it was observed by the court that discretion vested with the Director General of Police under Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989 had not been judicially exercised. It was held as under: “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. It was held as under: “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 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.” 15. The scope for discrimination and unequal treatment of equals would be diminished to a large extent if more objective criteria is spelt out.16. We may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. G. Jaya Prasad Rao and others [ (2007)11 SCC 528 ] , wherein challenge to rule for accelerated promotion in recognition of outstanding work in the field of anti extremist operations was negated and it was held that those officers who opt to take part in such operations form a class apart. The Supreme Court had also held that guidelines which had been framed by the State Government to regulate the accelerated promotions were proper insulation against arbitrariness and discretion. The criteria had been laid down in the guidelines and the recommendations for out of turn promotion had to be considered by a High Powered Committee constituted by the Police Department and then by a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State Government.17. Therefore, we direct the respondents to frame structured and elaborate guidelines laying down objective criteria to assess the relative merit of the candidates who are considered for out of turn promotion. The cases of those candidates who qualify in terms of the criteria should be finally considered and decided by the Director General of Police by passing a speaking order. These guidelines would supplement Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months.18. In the result, we do not find it a fit case to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. These guidelines would supplement Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months.18. In the result, we do not find it a fit case to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.Dismissal of writ petition sustained - Special appeal dismissed. *******