207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 Rajbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking ante-dated promotion by bringing his name on B-1 list under 10% quota.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as constable on 25.10.2000. While he was posted at Police Station Pataudi (Commissionerate Gurgaon), FIR No. 48 dated 22.04.2003 under Sections 307/332/353/421 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act was registered at Police Station Pataudi against persons who were involved in armed dacoity. Police party along with petitioner showed utter bravery and valour in nabbing those accused by chasing them and involving themselves in armed encounter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unlike Bijender Singh, petitioner has not been considered for bringing on the promotion list B-1 against 10% seats for displaying exceptional bravery in apprehending the accused persons involved in aforestated FIR.

4. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner was enlisted as Constable on 25.10.2000 and in 2004 he had not completed five years’ service, thus, was not eligible for consideration to bring on B-I List under 10% quota. He had not even completed five years’ service on 01.01.2005, thus, was not considered in 2005. There was no batch in 2006. In 2007, he participated in B-I Test against 55% quota. He was brought on B-I List in 2007 against said quota. As petitioner had not completed 5 years mandatory service, thus, he could not be granted out of turn promotion.

5. A conspectus of record reveals that petitioner was claiming out of turn promotion on the ground of his act of bravery and valour in nabbing armed dacoits. He concededly had not completed five years’ service on 01.01.2004 or 01.01.2005. The respondent has reproduced in its reply amended Rule 13.7(2)(iii) to contend that a Constable for exceptional bravery or consistent outstanding performance cannot be brought on list B-1 unless he has completed five years’ service. Rule

13.7(2)(iii) as quoted in written statement is reproduced as below:

“13.7(2)(iii): All constables irrespective of their education qualifications shall be eligible to be brought on list B-1, on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in job/obtaining Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police Games/Duty Meet/National or International Games or exceptional display of bravery during the course of performance of official duty if they are under the age of 40 years and have completed 2 years of service on the 1st day of January of the year in which selection is made. Only those constables shall be brought on list B-1 after 2 years of service, but before 5 years of service who have won a medal in International Sports event like Olympics, Asian Games, Commonwealth games or similarly international event. Constables who have won medals in National Games / All India Police Games/ Duty Meet and who are being considered for exceptional bravery or consistent outstanding performance shall be considered only if, they have put in minimum 5 years of service."

[Emphasis supplied]

6. In the wake of above-cited Rule, the petitioner was not entitled to be brough on list B-1 either in 2004 or 2005. He was brought on list B-1 in 2007 because in 2006, no B-1 selection was made. Claim of petitioner that he must have been brought on list B-1 in 2004 is not sustainable and liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.

7. Dismissed

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

06.02.2026 Prince Chawla Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No