1
Court No. 35
Special Appeal No. 552 of 2006
Virendra Singh Rathor
Vs.
State of U.P. & Others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.
Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.
This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 2.5.2006
passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by
the petitioner seeking out of turn promotion in terms of Government
Order dated 3.2.1994, had been dismissed. Earlier this appeal was
dismissed by order dated 25.5.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this
Court, against which order the appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 7816 of
2009 before the Apex Court, which was allowed on 23.11.2009 with the
following observation:
“The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the Division Bench of the
High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
The High Court is requested to pass a speaking and reasoned
order in accordance with law after hearing the parties
within three months from the date of supply of a copy of this
order to it.
We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits
of the case.
The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent
indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.”
On such remand made by the Apex Court, this matter has come
up before us for fresh decision.
We have heard Sri Sheetla Sahai, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State respondents and have perused the record.
The brief facts of this case are that to nab a hardened criminal
Komil @ Nawab, who carried a reward of Rs. 10,000/-, in the night of
31.5.1999 a police party had been sent and after cross fires, the criminal
Komil @ Nawab was shot dead and one constable Krishna Pal Singh
2
received bullet injury in his chest. For the courageous act of the police
team, the Senior Superintendent of Police had recommended for out of
turn promotion of the five persons of the said police party. The Deputy
Inspector General of Police had also made similar recommendation in
favour of the said persons. The matter of out of turn promotion was
considered by the Committee constituted under the relevant
Government Order, which recommended that out of turn promotion be
given to constable Krishna Pal Singh. However, the case of the other
members of the police party was not found to be within the norms of
the Government Order.
On the case of the petitioner having been ignored, the petitioner
filed a representation and when the same was not decided, he filed a
writ petition, which was disposed of with the direction to the Director
General of Police to decide his representation by speaking order.
Pursuant thereto, the Director General of Police passed the order dated
10.1.2006, which was impugned in the writ petition, which has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Perusal of the said order dated 10.1.2006 shows that the constable
Krishna Pal Singh was given out of turn promotion because of
exemplary bravery and courage shown by him by making all efforts to
catch the criminal alive, in which process the said constable received
bullet injury in his chest but still he continued to fire on the criminals
and was primarily responsible for the death of the criminal Komil. It is
categorically stated in the impugned order that such specific mention of
bravery and courage of constable Krishna Pal Singh was made in the
first information report itself. The impugned order has taken note of the
fact that the entire team had shown courage in apprehending the
criminals but out of turn promotion was to be given in accordance with
applicable Government Order, which does not provide that the entire
police party should be rewarded with out of turn promotion if one
person is found fit for such reward.
Sri Sheetla Sahai has however submitted that in case if the
petitioner and other persons, who had also been recommended for out
3
of turn promotion, are not granted the same benefit as Krishna Pal
Singh, the same would be against the principle of team spirit as it is not
the bravery of one single person but of the entire team because of which
the criminal was apprehended and thus the respondents should not have
ignored the principle of team spirit and ought to have given the same
reward of out of turn promotion to the petitioner also, as had been given
to Krishna Pal Singh.
On being asked, Sri Sheetla Sahai could not point out any
specific instance of bravery shown by the petitioner in six pages
recommendation of Senior Superintendent of Police for out of turn
promotion to the police team of five persons. In such recommendation,
there is specific mention of constable Krishna Pal Singh that he had
faced criminals and fired on them even after receiving the bullet injury
and made every effort to catch the criminal alive. Even if there is a
recommendation made by the Senior Superintendent of Police and
Deputy Director General of Police that out of turn promotion be given
to five persons of police team, it is not necessary that all the five
persons should be given such out of turn promotion. The same would
only be a recommendation, which is to be considered on merits by the
Committee constituted by the Government for such purpose. The
Government Order dated 3.2.1994, the benefit of which the petitioner is
claiming, also does not provide for the entire team being rewarded with
the same out of turn promotion as may be given to one person of the
team for valid reasons.
After considering the facts, the Committee found the role of
constable Krishna Pal Singh alone of such bravery and courage who
could be rewarded for out of turn promotion under the Government
Order, which was for adequate reasons given in the order passed on the
representation made by the petitioner. Out of turn promotion is not to be
given as a matter of right. It is the discretion of the authority concerned,
which has to take into account various considerations with regard to the
act of bravery while deciding the case before it for grant of out of turn
promotion. No doubt, the said decision is to be taken by the authorities
4
objectively and judiciously.
In the present case, we do not find any good ground for setting
aside the order passed by the Director General of Police while deciding
the representation of the petitioner as the decision has been taken for
good and valid reasons and also in terms of the Government Order
dated 3.2.1994. We are thus in respectful agreement with the reasoning
given by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt: 1.7.2010
abhiShek