Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1028 (MP)

Vaidya Raj v. State of M. P.

2016-11-10

SHEEL NAGU

body2016
ORDER 1. This case is taken up from the category of HIGH COURT EXPEDITED CASES - SHORT QUESTION, ARGUMENTS NOT EXCEEDING 30 MINUTES. 2. The present writ petition under Articles 226/2227 of the Constitution of India assails the order contained in Annexure P-1 dated 9.8.2007 passed by the Director General of Police (D.G.P.), M.P. by which award of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,500/- has been extended to the petitioners for having participated in anti-dacoity operation leading to elimination of Sobran Gadariya and some of his companions in crime who were active members of the Dayaram-Rambabu Gang of dacoits, after rejecting the case for out of turn promotion under the provision of Regulation 70-A of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that other members of the police party who had executed the said encounter have been granted out of turn promotion but petitioners have been discriminated against by denying the said benefit to them. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that despite having shown equal bravery, valour and having undergone risk as shown by the other members of the police party, petitioners have been denied their rightful claim of out of turn promotion under Regulation 70-A of M.P. Police Regulations which was prevailing in the statute book from 10.6.1987 to 11.9.2012. For convenience and ready reference the said provision is reproduced below :- “70-A Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 70, a Constable may be promoted to the rank of Head Constable by the Superintendent of Police with the prior approval of the Directors General of Police and a 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 dacoit operations, law and order situations of shooting competitions or in some other field of duty or who has been awarded the President's Police Medal 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 percent.’’] 4. 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 percent.’’] 4. A plain reading of above provision makes it clear that concept of out of turn promotion was introduced to felicitate and encourage reward the members of the police force who distinguished themselves in anti-dacoit operations, law and order situation, shooting competitions or in some other field of duty or who have been awarded President's Police Medal for Gallentary or for distinguished services. 4.1 The claim put up by the petitioner under Regulation 70-A was considered by a Committee comprising of six members. The claim for out of turn promotion cannot be claimed as of right and lies within the domain of discretion of the appointing authority on the recommendation of the Expert Committee which is requested to act in an objective manner. In the present case, as is evident from Annexure R-1 the petitioners' claim was put up before the committee of six members comprising of Additional Inspector General of Police (Administration)/Chairman, Inspector General of Police (Ka/vya)/member, Inspector General of Police (vvfo)/member, Inspector General of Police (selection)/member Secretary, Inspector General of Police (Special Armed Forces/Headquarter)/member, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration)/member. On consideration, the Committee declined to accede to the claim for out of turn promotion but direct cash award of Rs.5000/- for having participated in the antidacoit operation. 5. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Committee took into account any irrelevant consideration or excluded any relevant consideration. 6. This Court had occasion to consider the aspect of scope of interference in the matter of out of turn promotion in case of N.K. Parihar v. State of M.P. Decided on 9.5.2007 (Annexure R-3) by the Division Bench of this Court, relevant portion of which is reproduced below :- 4. 6. This Court had occasion to consider the aspect of scope of interference in the matter of out of turn promotion in case of N.K. Parihar v. State of M.P. Decided on 9.5.2007 (Annexure R-3) by the Division Bench of this Court, relevant portion of which is reproduced below :- 4. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has considered the matter thus :- “The petitioner was not found fit for his out of turn promotion but was found fit for a prize of Rs.500/- Rule 70(ka) filed by the petitioner Annexure A-7 contemplates that in case of extraordinary bravery work the cases of an incumbent shall be considered for giving out of turn promotion subject to the 10% of limited vacancies. There is nothing on record to show in the petition filed by the petitioner that inspite of there being vacancies towards 10% quota for giving out of turn promotion reserved under the Police Regulations Act, 70(ka), the petitioner was liable to be promoted so that an effective direction could have been given.” 5. Thus, it is evident that the appellant – petitioner cannot claim out of turn promotion as a matter of right. Such bald calculation without taking into consideration the attending circumstances that merely because the appellant- petitioner had been grant of Rs.500/- price money for his bravery, he also deserved the out of turn promotion does not merit consideration. 6. In view of aforesaid, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and as an inevitable result thereof the writ appeal is dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs. Moreover this Court has also taken similar view that there is no scope for interference as neither any statutory rule has been violated nor any fundamental right has been breached by denying claim for out of turn promotion. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Dinesh Singh v. State of M.P. [Writ Petition No.289/2008 (s)] decided on 5.4.2011 by which in similar circumstances direction was given to consider the representation of the petitioner for out of turn promotion sympathetically. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Dinesh Singh v. State of M.P. [Writ Petition No.289/2008 (s)] decided on 5.4.2011 by which in similar circumstances direction was given to consider the representation of the petitioner for out of turn promotion sympathetically. 8. Needless to emphasize that no ratio has been laid down by the said decision in the case of Dinesh Singh (supra), and therefore in the light of Division Bench Decision in N.K. Parihar (supra), the view taken by the Single Bench in the case of Dinesh Singh fades into insignificance. 9. In view of the above, this Court declines to interfere in the matter and merely disposes of this petition with direction that in case petitioners prefer fresh representation before the State under Regulation 274 of the M.P. Police Regulations against the impugned order, which if done within 30 working days then it shall be considered and decided by the State by a speaking order within 60 days thereafter. 10. Needless to emphasis that in case the petitioner avails the remedy as above then the State would not be prejudiced by this order. Himanshu Sharma for petitioners; N. S. Kirar, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.