Dholpur Rajasthan v. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary Home

Suresh Chand S/o Shri Ram Lal, aged about 39 years, R/o Aari Police Station Saipau, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.) At Present Head Constable No. 247 PS Sadar District Dholpur Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary Home Department Of Home Home Ministry Secretariat Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police, Police Ho Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Rang Bharatpur, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Distt- Dholpur Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishesh Sharma with Ms. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/08/2025

1. Petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to consider their cases for out of turn promotion from [2025:RJ-JP:33160] (2 of 6) [CW-628/2013] Constable to Head Constable in the light of Rule 28(a) of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 in the same manner in which such promotion has been granted to one Shri Krishan Murari Constable and all consequential benefits be given to them.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the petitioners are holding the post of Constable/Constable Driver. They all were included in an encounter operation against notorious Dacoit Lara @ Gyani and in that encounter operation, their performance was exceptional and resulted in arrest of the said dacoit. It was also stated that during that operation, even the dacoits opened firing against the Police team in which all the petitioners have sustained firearm injuries.

3. In order to appreciate the commendable work of the entire team the Superintendent of Police, Dholpur made recommendation dated 22.08.2008 wherein the petitioner No.1 was recommended for out of turn promotion under Rule 28(a) of the aforesaid Rules of 1989, whereas recommendation for giving cash reward and appreciation certificate to petitioners No. 2 and 3 was also made.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the same recommendation letter dated 22.08.2008, recommendation was also made in respect of one Shri Krishan Murari Constable. Grievance of the petitioner is that recommendation qua Shri Krishan Murari has been carried out and out of turn promotion has been granted to Shri Krishan Murari. But similar treatment has not been given to the petitioners. Secondly, the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police was also discriminatory in [2025:RJ-JP:33160] (3 of 6) [CW-628/2013] nature for the reason that similar firearm injuries were suffered by so many persons including petitioners yet except petitioner No.1, no recommendation for out of turn promotion was made in respect of other two petitioners, which has caused serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. Even after recommendation, qua petitioner No.1, promotion order has not been granted to him which has defeated his legitimate rights.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the sole purpose of inserting Rule 28(a) in the Rules of 1989 was to encourage the police officials as well as to reward their exceptional work and in case, the powers under Rules 28(a) is allowed to be exercised in discriminatory manner, by making differentiation amongst the employees involved in the same operation, then they may not be willing to participate in such dangerous operations in future.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that firstly, recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Dholpur on 22.08.2008 has not been challenged by the petitioner whereas the recommendation itself shows that the petitioners No.2 and 3 were never recommended for out of turn promotion and were rather considered fit for cash reward and appreciation certificate. Thus, in case the petitioners No.2 and 3 were aggrieved by the recommendation then they should have challenged the part of the recommendation causing them any disadvantage.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that there were penalties in the service record of petitioner No.1 Ram Nath and petitioner No.2 Jay Dev. [2025:RJ-JP:33160] (4 of 6) [CW-628/2013]

8. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to Rule 28(a) of the rules of 1989 which reads as under: “28. Special nomination for promotion cadre course:- Notwithstanding anything contained sub-rule (1) to (3) of Rule 27 above: (a). Nomination for promotion cadre course for next higher rank up to Sub-Inspector in Section-I and Section-III and up to Platoon Commander in Section II and Section IV of Rule 4 up to 10% of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion in a particular year, may be made by the Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police in case of those who have shown outstanding work in the anti-dacoity, anti-smuggling or in any special field of Police work, including performance in Games and Sports, or have put in not less than 20 years service exclusively as member of the service and also have exceptionally good and unblemished record of service with integrity: Provided that no member of the service shall be nominated more than once on account of 20 years as mentioned above.“

9. At the strength of aforesaid Rule, learned counsel for the respondents submit that only showing outstanding work in anti-dacoit operation is not enough to attract the out of turn promotion under Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989. The incumbent, in addition to performing such outstanding work, is also required to possess exceptionally good and unblemished record of service with integrity.

10. In the instant case, as per learned counsel for the respondents, petitioners No.1 and 2 were having adversities on account of suffering penalties under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Hence, in view of the aforesaid Rules, the petitioners were entitled for the benefit under Rule 28(a).

11. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and meticulously examined the record. [2025:RJ-JP:33160] (5 of 6) [CW-628/2013]

12. It reveals from the record that around 49 officials were involved in the said operation against the dacoit Lara. After the successful operation, the Superintendent of Police, Dholpur after appreciating the entire team made recommendations only in respect of few officials, who, in the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, were instrumental and were leading the team and played vital role in the success of the operation.

13. Admittedly, recommendation of Superintendent of Police has not been challenged by the petitioner. In the aforesaid recommendation, the petitioners No. 2 and 3 were simply recommended for cash reward and appreciation certificate which has already been given to them by the respondents.

14. It has been informed by learned counsel for the respondents that in order to have consideration under Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989, recommendation of Superintendent of Police is the fundamental requirement. Since, such recommendation was not there in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3, there was no occasion for considering their case under Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989.

15. As regards petitioner No.1 is concerned, although the Superintendent of Police recommended him for out of turn promotion, yet on account of admitted adversity in his record relating to a penalty under Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1958, in view of explicitly clear language of Rule 28(a), he was not entitled for promotion as the elementary requirement for getting such promotion also includes possessing exceptionally good and unblemished record of service with integrity. [2025:RJ-JP:33160] (6 of 6) [CW-628/2013]

16. In view of above discussion, I do not find any arbitrariness or irregularity in the action of the respondents and the writ petition filed by the petitioners is, hereby, dismissed. NEERU/18 (ANAND SHARMA),J