Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Arun Kumar, S/o Late Ramrup Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No.392 of 2019
Decided on : 16-12-2022
Promotion - Police Manual - Rule 660(C)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought out of turn promotion based on a letter from the Director General of Police, claiming to have received a police medal in 2012. The Departmental Promotion Committee rejected the claim citing the lack of a medal for bravery at the time of their meeting in 2008. The appellant alleged discrimination as others were promoted despite not meeting the criteria. The State argued that the appellant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria under Rule 660(C) of the Police Manual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria for out of turn promotion as per Rule 660(C) of the Police Manual. The court also found that the promotion granted to others who similarly did not meet the criteria was illegal and ordered their reversion to their original posts. The court directed the Chief Secretary to conduct an enquiry to fix accountability for the illegal promotions and compensate the loss to the state exchequer.
Issues: 1. Eligibility for out of turn promotion under Rule 660(C) of the Police Manual. 2. Interpretation of 'citation' and its relevance to out of turn promotion. 3. Discrimination in promotion decisions. 4. Accountability for illegal promotions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for out of turn promotion as per Rule 660(C) of the Police Manual. It also found that the promotion granted to others who similarly did not meet the criteria was illegal and ordered their reversion to their original posts. The court directed the Chief Secretary to conduct an enquiry to fix accountability for the illegal promotions and compensate the loss to the state exchequer.
Final Decision: The instant appeal was disposed of with the above observations and directions. The court ordered the reversion of the illegally promoted individuals and directed the Chief Secretary to conduct an enquiry to fix accountability for the illegal promotions and compensate the loss to the state exchequer.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No.8569 of 2019
The instant interlocutory application has been filed seeking a direction for amendment in the pleadings of the instant appeal on the basis of a document, i.e., letter dated 02.08.2012 issued by Director General of Police Human Right Jharkhand.
2. It has been contended by the appellant that the learned Single Judge has wrongly given a finding that the petitioner’s claim for giving him out of turn promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee was rejected on the ground that he has not been awarded any medal for bravery, as stipulated under Rule 660 of the Police Manual.
It has been further stated that the learned Single Judge has given aforesaid wrong finding without taking into consideration the supplementary affidavit dated 12.04.2013 filed by the writ petitioner/appellant in W.P.(S) No.1458 of 2008.
3. This Court has perused the copy of letter dated 02.08.2012, as appended as Annexure-11 to the instant interlocutory application wherefrom it is evident that the petitioner was awarded with the Police Medal in the year 2012 but the fact remains that at the time of meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, which was held on 10.01.2008, the writ petitioner/appellant was not having any medal for bravery as required for getting out of turn promotion under the provision or Rule 660(C) of the Police Manual.
4. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition has observed that neither the petitioner was awarded any medal for his bravery nor any citation was given to him for his outstanding work taking into consideration the minutes of the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee which was held on 10.01.2008 by which date the petitioner was not awarded with the police medal which he has received in the year 2012.
5. In view of aforesaid, this Court finds that even if the instant interlocutory application will be allowed, the writ petitioner/appellant will not be benefitted because he has got the police medal in the year 2012 while the recommendation for out of turn promotion was made by the Departmental Committee on 10.01.2008.
6. In view thereof, this instant interlocutory application is dismissed.
L.P.A. No.392 of 2019
7. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.04.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1458 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the order dated 10.01.2008 passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee by which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of out of turn promotion has been rejected, has been refused to be interfered with.
8. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated, read as under :-
The writ petitioner claims that he was instrumental in apprehending two criminals with a huge cache of arms for which recommendation was made for rewarding the petitioner for his bravery. The Director General of Police had also communicated vide letter dated 18.01.1994 recommending the award of a revolver on account of his bravery.
The recommendation so made by the Director General of Police was accepted by the Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar, Home, (Police Department) vide his letter dated 21.08.1996. The writ petitioner was not desirous of accepting the award, rather wanted out of turn promotion in terms of Rule 660 (C) of the Police Manual and, as such, made representation for consideration of his case for out of turn promotion. The same was not considered and, as such, writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 351 of 2004 was filed which was disposed of on 22.01.2004 directing
The main legal point established in the judgment is that public posts cannot be filled by candidates who do not meet the eligibility criteria as per the applicable rules. The court emphasized that il....
The court emphasized that the delay in filing a review petition can be condoned if a sufficient cause is shown, and reiterated that promotions must comply with eligibility criteria to avoid perpetuat....
Out-of-turn promotions are discretionary rewards, not entitlements; entitlement depends on the merit and substantive evaluation of performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of 'Out of Turn Promotion' must be reasonable, fair, and non-discriminatory. The court emphasized the principle of equality under A....
Promotion cannot be denied solely based on the number of past punishments without considering their nature and timing, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
Denial of out of turn promotion to team leader in gallantry encounter, while granting to subordinates without reasoned distinction, is arbitrary and violates Articles 14/16; reconsideration mandated ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
