Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14138 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
VINOD PANDEY S/O SHRI R.N. PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 35
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: POLICE CONSTABLE THANA
PALI DISTT. UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS. VARIJA
GHILDIYAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPT. VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE P.H.Q. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE JABALPUR
ZONE, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE DISTT.KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE DISTT.UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on hearing for this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant to the
petitioner out of turn promotion in terms of the provisions contained in para 70-
A of the M.P. Police Regulations.
2. Shri Ghildiyal, learned Senior Counsel, submits that petitioner was
appointed as Constable in the year 1999. He was posted at Katni in the year
2008, when he had participated in the ambush to catch hold of one of the
hardened criminals, namely, Vijay Kewat @ Bichku, who had a history of
several criminal cases and a prize of Rs.5,000/- over his head.
3. During the encounter, Vijay Kewat @ Bichku had fired at the Head
Constable, when petitioner had caught hold of him from behind so to disarm his
firearm held by him. It is submitted that the person at whom firearm was shot
by Bichku, was given out of turn promotion. Initially, name of the petitioner
was recommended by the Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Zone Jabalpur,
for award of prize of Rs.5,000/- as is contained in Annx.P/1.
4. Subsequently, on an application moved by the petitioner as contained in
Annx.P/2, case of the petitioner was reviewed by the same incumbent to the
post of Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Zone Jabalpur and he had
recommended the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion.
5. Shri Ghildiyal, learned Senior counsel, places reliance on the judgment of
Division Bench of this High Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs.
Mahendra Kumar Sharma (ILR 2008 MP 208), wherein, Hon'ble Division
Bench has held that direction of the High Court to grant out of turn promotion
instead of directing authorities to consider the case for promotion as
respondent had taken part in anti dacoity operation, then such direction of the
writ Court cannot be faulted with and there is no ground to interfere in such
direction nor such direction is contrary to law.
6. Placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that petitioner's case be
allowed and he be granted out of turn promotion.
7. Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate, opposes the prayer and
submits that no ground for out of turn promotion is made out. Petition is liable
to be dismissed and be dismissed as such with costs.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court wanted to know
from Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Senior counsel, as to under which provision
of law Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Zone Jabalpur was authorised to
review his own decision of granting prize money of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the
petitioner as contained in Annx.P/1 dated 22.05.2010 within a short duration of
2 to 3 months and then recommend case of the petitioner for out of turn
promotion. He submits that this recommendation is in addition to the earlier
award of prize and is not in derogation to the earlier recommendation.
9. However, the law is well settled that once the matter was examined by the
High Level Committee and if petitioner was found suitable for out of turn
promotion as was communicated vide Annx.R/1 on the basis of the
recommendations of a six member committee, whose recommendation is
contained in Annx.R/2, then the petitioner cannot claim out of turn promotion
as a matter of right.
10. Even in the case of Mahendra Kumar Sharma (supra), Hon'ble Division
Bench has held that respondent will be free to consider that the candidate
therein is not otherwise unsuitable for promotion.
11. It has come on record that petitioner was given his normal promotion in
the year 2012. it has also come on record that Police Regulation 70-A, which
was inserted vide Notification dated 10.06.1987, was deleted by Notification
dated 11.09.2012.
12. Further, law in this behalf as laid down by Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Sanjay Shukla [2023 LiveLaw (SC
277], is that as per Regulation 70-A, out of turn promotion cannot be claimed
as a matter of right. It is held that case for out of turn promotion is required to
be considered objectively and if the case falls within any of the categories
mentioned in Regulation 70-A. and the Committee takes a conscious decision
on consideration of the case objectively in line with Regulation 70-A and the
process is found to be fair, just and equitable, thereafter, the Court's
intervention is minimal.
13. In the present case, ratio of the case of Sanjay Shukla (supra) will be
applicable, inasmuch as, after committee having objectively considered the case
of the petitioner and finding him to be not suitable for out of turn promotion on
the touchstone of the provisions contained in Regulation 70-A, then that
decision cannot be set aside by showing extra indulgence, inasmuch as,
Supreme Court has held that unless the decision making process is shown to be
unfair, unjust and inquitable, Court should not intervene.
14. When these aspects are taken into consideration, then the impugned
action of respondents in not granting out of turn promotion to the petitioner
cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, specially when there are no pleadings of
malafide or arbitrariness against the members of the Committee, who had taken
a decision as contained in Annx.R/2.
15. Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
