Bhupendra Singh Tomar vs State of M.P.

A.K. Shrivastaa, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider and grant out of turn promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Constable on the basis of his bravest and extraordinary act performed in an incident dated 16.1.2008 where the notorious dacoit Bunty alias Virendra s/o Gangaram Gurjar died. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 16.1.2008 an encounter between the police party and gang of dacoit Bunty Gurjar took place in which petitioner was also the member of the police party and was serving on the post of Constable. On account of his brave action as he shot down the dacoit Bunty Gurjar and said dacoit died, the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri on 24.4.2008 recommended for his promotion out of turn. The contention of the learned counsel is that although three persons, namely, Kedar Singh, Arun Kumar and present petitioner Bhupendra Singh were recommended for promotion out of turn, but, only Arun Kumar has been given out of turn promotion whereas the petitioner has been benefited by award of cash Rs. 2,000/- only.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an arbitrary manner his candidature to promote him out of turn has been rejected.

On the other hand, Smt. Patankar, learned Government Advocate submits that the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri was later on amended on the basis of the amended recommendation as the petitioner was not found fit to be promoted out of turn and therefore, rightly he has not been given promotion out of turn. It has also been put forth by her that out of the availability of the vacant posts, a quota of 10% has been fixed to promote out of turn the eligible police candidates and therefore, the petitioner cannot be promoted out of turn.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.

The relevant Clause 70-A of the M.P. police Regulations reads, thus:

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 dacoity operations, law and order situations of shooting competitions or in some other field of duty or who has been awarded the Presidents 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.

On bare perusal of the letter dated 2.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) of Superintendent of Police, Dist. Shivpuri addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior it is gathered that strong recommendation was made for three persons serving on the post of Constable. Their names are Kedar Singh, Arun Kumar and present petitioner Bhupendra Singh. In the recommendatory letter it was strongly stated that on account of gunshot fire of the Constables including the present petitioner the dacoit Bunty Gurjar had died. Further it has been mentioned that for last four years the present petitioner Bhupendra Singh Tomar is deputed for "To Extinguish the Dacoit Project". However, on perusal of Annexure R-2 which is a letter of Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri in reference to the letter of the Inspector General of Police to make certain necessary amendment in the recommendation, the name of the petitioner has been left out.

According to me, the procedure so adopted by the department is wholly arbitrary, since strong recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police. It appears that on account of the verdict given by the Inspector General of Police, the recommendation was amended deleting the name of the petitioner.

At this juncture, it would be condign to quote the recommendation which was made by Superintendent of Police in his letter (Annexure P-l), which reads, thus:

It would be germane to mention here that in the recommendation only the name of Bhupendra Singh Tomar was recommended but he has not been given out of turn promotion.

Here it is also pertinent to quote the relevant extract of the amended recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri as contained in Annexure R-2, which reads, thus:

The case of the present petitioner appears to be similar to that of constable Arun Kumar who has admittedly been given promotion out of turn. Hence, I am of the view that arbitrarily the case of the petitioner has been rejected and he has not been given promotion out of turn.

So far as the availability of the post is concerned, it is not the, case of the respondents that the posts of Head Constables are not lying vacant and even if they are lying vacant, within the limit of quota of 10% the name of the petitioner cannot be included.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the name of the petitioner to provide him promotion out of turn in terms of Regulation 70-A of the M.P. Police Regulations. Let the decision be taken on or before 30.04.2012. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.