Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 102
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sameer Jain, J.
Jagdish S/o Shri Ramniwas - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 150 of 2026
Decided On : 31-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Promotion Disputes
Act Referred
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES SERVICE MATTERS APPELLATE TRIBUNALS ACT : S.2(f)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Headnote
(B) Jurisdiction of Writ Court - Delay and laches - The court indicated that unreasonable delay in filing a petition may lead to refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the potential impact on third-party rights and administrative finality (Paras 20, 22).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the denial of gallantry promotion despite a recommendation from police superiors. The petition was filed nearly a decade after the impugned decision, which awarded a cash prize instead of promotion.
Findings of Court:
The court found no fault with the discretionary nature of the decision-making by the Reward Committee, citing a lack of demonstrable illegality.
Issues: (a) Whether the refusal to grant gallantry promotion was arbitrary; (b) Whether promotion under Rule 28(a) is a matter of right.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that promotion is discretionary and that the delay in filing the petition denied relief, and the decision by the Reward Committee was a valid exercise of its discretion without any illegality.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Mr.Pradeep Kumar Choudhary
For the Respondent: Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG with Ms.Kavita Sharma, Ms.Akshita Sharma, Mr.Vishnu Dutt Sharma
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for gallantry promotion. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of petitioner’s police service and incident. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. recommendations for promotion based on outstanding work. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. citations of relevant legal precedents. (Para 8) |
| 5. respondents argue for dismissal due to delay and lack of statutory remedy. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 6. writ petition’s delay and discretionary jurisdiction considerations. (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 7. assessment of considerable delay and lack of merit. (Para 20 , 22) |
| 8. promotion is discretionary; no fundamental right. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. writ petition dismissed based on findings. (Para 29) |
| 10. final decision rendered. (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:
“1. The respondents may be directed to consider and grant gallantry promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Constable as per the recommendations made by Superintendent of Police, Ajmer vide Letter dated 09.10.2012 and Inspector General of Police Ajmer, Range Ajmer vide Letter dated 08.01.2014 as per the Rule 28 (a) of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Rules 1989.
2. The respondents may be directed to accord promotion to the petitioner against the vacancy of the year 2012-2013, in which promotion has been denied their Team in connection with FIR No.441/2012 registered at Police Station Beawar City.
3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted.
4. The cost of the writ petition may be allowed in favour of the Petitioner.”
2. The primary issue for consideration before this Court is that the petitioner is aggrieved of the denial of ‘Gallantry Promotion’ to him, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989.
3. The nitty-gritty of the matter as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into the services of the Police Department in the year 2007 on being appointed as Constable (General Duty) bearing Belt No. 1309, whereas one Shri Vinod Kumar entered service in the year 2007 bearing Belt No. 1315. The petitioner is presently discharging his duties as a Constable in the respondent Police Department.
4. It was submitted that while the petitioner and Shri Vinod Kumar were posted at Police Station Beawar, an FIR was registered by one Shri Abhay Kumar Sankhala, stating therein that his elder brother Shri Mali Sankhala had been kidnapped by certain unknown persons and that ransom of Rs. 15 lakhs was being demanded for his release. Learned counsel further submitted that immediately after filing of the FIR, the authorities of the Police Department constituted a team consisting of the present petitioner along with Vinod Kumar for investigation and search of Shri Mali Sankhala. During the course of investigation and search, it was revealed that the accused persons after kidnapping had taken Shri Mali Sankhala to Sahajahanpur (Alwar). It was further submitted that the members of the team, after collecting requisite information, came to know about the location where the accused persons were hiding. Subsequently, the police personnel followed the accused and, while exchange of fire, successfully completed the operation and rescued Shri Mali Sankhala.
5. At this nascent juncture, learned counsel submitted that under Rule 28(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police is empowered to make nomination for promotion cadre course up to 10% of the vacancy to be filled in by way of promotion in a particular year of those police personnel who have shown outstanding work in anti-dacoity, anti-smuggling or in any special field of police work, including performance in games and sport, or have put in not less than 20 years of service exclusively.
6. It was also submitted that in appreciation of the brave and extraordinary efforts of the petitioner and the team,
