Madhya Pradesh HC Orders State To Grant Out-Of-Turn Promotion To Constable, Says Administrative Discretion Should Not Be Arbitrary And Unreasonable

Justice M.R. Phadke further observed that usually the courts refrain from assessing the performance of an official for the purpose of promotion, it is duty bound to interfere in cases where injustice has been caused to the concerned officer.

While relying on an earlier ruling, the court said:

Thus, it is clear that though the petitioner cannot claim his out of turn promotion for the act of his bravery, as a matter of legal right, but at the same time, the discretion of the authorities should not be arbitrary and unreasonable. In the absence of any glaring discrepancy or bias in the decision-making process, ordinarily the Court does not normally take upon itself the task of making a subjective assessment of an officer's performance in relation to matters of promotion and that too of the nature contemplated in the present case. However, at the same time, the Court is also duty bound to consider the materials placed before it in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether an injustice has been caused to the concerned officer.

The order has been passed in a case filed by a Constable, who was recommended by his seniors for out-of-turn promotion for his act of bravery. He was a member of the police party, which had killed dacoit Suresh Gaud alias Bijju Mama in 2010. 

However, his name was dropped from the revised list due to which he could not get the benefit. Aggrieved, he moved the Court.

It was argued before the court that as per the Police Regulations governing his services back in the year 2010-11, he ought to have been given the benefit of out-of-turn promotion. His counsel further pointed out that he was also recommended by the Superintendent of Police as well as the Inspector General. However, in the revised list of beneficiaries, his name was arbitrarily dropped. The court was told that while 10 police personnel have been granted out-of-turn promotion, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of Regulation 70-A without any reason.

It was, thus, argued that by granting the same benefit to the similarly placed personnel, the authorities discriminated the Petitioner, thereby violating his fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the State argued that the petitioner could not claim out of turn promotion as a matter of right. It was further submitted that the scrutiny committee, which is constituted to evaluate and consider cases for out of turn promotion, after its assessment found that petitioner was not fit for the promotion. The administrative decision taken by the authorities cannot be interfered with, the State argued while seeking dismissal of the petition.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the court observed that it is a clear-cut case of discrimination. The court further observed that no findings were brought on record to reflect reasons for not considering the case of the petitioner-

"Similarly situated persons were given out of turn promotion and there is no explanation as to the situation for asking the Inspector General to reanalyse his recommendations and Inspector General to reappreciate his earlier recommendations and ousting the petitioner from the lot of persons recommended for out of turn promotion and while doing so, neither Inspector General nor the Screening Committee has recorded any finding that he is not fit for promotion. Thus, it is a clear-cut case of discrimination," the court said.

Noting the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court thought it fit to direct the authorities to grant out-of-turn promotion to the petitioner. 

Normally this court would have sent the matter back to the Authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner, but looking to the dictum of Division Bench in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sharma (supra) and long period which has already lapsed in the litigation; it would be in the fitness of the things to put an end to the further complications at this stage only and therefore, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of out of turn promotion to the petitioner in terms of Clause 70-A M.P. Police Regulation with all consequential benefits from the date when other identically situated police personnel were granted out of turn promotion.

The Court disposed of the petition by instructing the authorities to complete the exercise within three months of the receipt of the order.

Case Title: KAMAL SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 232

Click Here To Read/Download Order