The Jharkhand High Court, in a case regarding out-of-turn promotions, stated that the State cannot use different standards for those in similar situations. The argument that policy matters give authorities the discretion to choose who and when to extend benefits under a scheme is hard to accept. This is because, as established by law, administrative actions must not be arbitrary.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners, sportspersons in the police department and medalists at National Level Sports Events have brought forth this writ petition. They contend that they have not been granted out-of-turn promotions in accordance with the State of Jharkhand's Policy. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting that the respondent-Police Authorities review their eligibility for out-of-turn promotion based on the policy.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under the policy to motivate sports persons in the police department, officers and members have been awarded out-of-turn promotions from the date of their medal victories. He referred to several instances, including a constable who won a gold medal in a national basketball championship and others who received promotions effective from the dates of their respective achievements. Further, the counsel contended that while petitioner numbers 3 to 17 did receive promotions, these were delayed and not backdated to their medal-winning dates. Regarding petitioner number 1, the counsel submitted that despite qualifying for promotion as a coach and meeting the necessary criteria, his promotion has been pending with the Departmental Promotion Committee for over six years. He highlighted that petitioner number 1 coached a team to a gold medal victory in a national police volleyball championship.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent acknowledged the police notification that granted out-of-turn promotions to exceptional sports persons in the department in the past. However, the counsel contested the demand for promotions backdated to the medal-winning dates. It was argued that the policy doesn't establish a legal right and is inherently discretionary. The counsel pointed out that, typically, promotions have been effective from the date of the order, not the winning date. They noted the exceptional case of one individual who received a promotion dated from his victory but mentioned that in other cases, including those of certain constables and an assistant sub-inspector, the notification didn't specify promotion from the medal-winning date. Regarding petitioner number 2, the counsel submitted that he is not a trained coach from the National Institute of Sports and is therefore ineligible for promotion under the Scheme.
Observations of the Court:
The bench observed that the policy of the government to encourage sports persons in the police department through out-of-turn promotions has been inconsistently applied. The main issue before the Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to promotions backdated to their medal-winning dates. Despite examples of such backdating in some instances, many petitioners have been granted promotions without this consideration.
The Court highlighted the arbitrary nature of these decisions, noting that some promotions were granted from the date of the order, others from the medal-winning date, and some cases were pending for years. This inconsistency conflicts with the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for uniform application of policies.
Furthermore, the Court noted that while promotions have been granted, financial benefits were only given from the date of joining the promotional post. The case of Petitioner No. 1, a trained coach, was also mentioned, whose promotion was pending despite qualifying for it. The Court stressed that such arbitrary decisions in awarding incentives contravene the constitutional guarantee of equality.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the observations and the case's context, the court granted the writ petition, instructing the respondents to award the petitioners out-of-turn promotions and related benefits from the date of their gold medal victories, with the exception of Petitioner No. 2, who does not meet the eligibility criteria.
Case Title: Sriniwas Rao and others vs The State of Jharkhand and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: W.P. (S) No. 6836 of 2018
Advocate for the Applicant: Ms. Swati Shalini
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Jai Prakash
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
