The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Dubey

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
1 WA-863-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 863 of 2023
CNR No.: MPHC010346002023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SANTOSH DUBEY
Appearance:
Shri Piyush Jain G.A. for the appellants/State.
Shri Nand Kishore Tiwari, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
The appellants/State have filed the present writ appeal against the
order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.24814/2003, whereby the respondent's claim for out-of-turn promotion
under Rule 56(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973
has been allowed.
2. The respondent's claim arose from an incident in which he
rescued his neighbours, Ms. Nalini Bai and Mr. Francis Joseph, whose
clothes had caught fire. Although he was awarded Rs.1,000/- for his act of
bravery, the competent committee found him unsuitable for out-of-turn
promotion. Upon reconsideration, the competent authority, vide order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
2 WA-863-2023
14.12.2020, held that the incident did not fall within the ambit of Rule 56(3)

of the Rules of 1973.
3. The appellants contend that Rule 56(3) is an enabling provision
conferring discretionary power upon the competent authority and does not
create any enforceable right to out-of-turn promotion. It is further submitted
that the incident occurred after 8:30 p.m., when the respondent was off duty,
and therefore, could not be treated as distinguished service in the discharge
of his official duties. The appellants also contend that each case for out-of-
turn promotion is required to be assessed on its own facts and cannot be
compared with those of other employees. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, exceeded the scope of judicial review by substituting his own
assessment for that of the competent authority. It is also argued that the
direction granting promotion retrospectively from 08.05.2000, the date of
submission of the respondent's representation, is unsustainable in law. On
these grounds, the appellants seek setting aside of the impugned order.
4. The respondent/writ petitioner contends that he has been pursuing
his claim for out-of-turn promotion to the post of Head Constable under Rule
56(3) of the Rules of 1973 for more than 20 years. He submits that this
Court, vide order dated 07.09.2020, had already observed that injustice had
been caused to him and directed the State Government to reconsider his
claim upon submission of a fresh representation. The matter was kept
pending to ensure compliance of the said direction and to avoid compelling
him to initiate fresh litigation. However, despite reconsideration, the State
Government rejected his representation vide order dated 14.12.2020. He,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
3 WA-863-2023
therefore, submits that the rejection is unjustified and seeks appropriate relief

in respect of his claim for out-of-turn promotion.
5. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent's act of bravery
in attempting to rescue two persons from a fire accident was undisputed and
had also been recognised by the State by awarding him a cash reward of
Rs.1,000/-. Taking note of the fact that several similarly situated police
personnel had been granted out-of-turn promotion for acts considered less
significant, the learned Single Judge found the denial of such promotion to
the respondent unjustified. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed,
directing his promotion to the post of Head Constable with effect from
08.05.2000, without back wages for the past period, but with consequential
pensionary benefits. Salary attached to the promotional post was directed to
be paid from the date of the order.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
record.
6. For ready reference, Chapter XII (Promotion and Examination) is
reproduced hereinbelow:
"56(3) Promotion and Examination: Notwithstanding anything contained in
the rules, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police may promote a constable to
the rank of a Head Constable, and with the approval of the Inspector-General
of Police a Head Constable to the post of Platoon Commander, who has
distinguished himself in anti-dacoity operations, law and order situations, or
shooting competitions, or in some other field of duty, [x x x] [Omitted by
Notification 2 (A) 224-96-B-(IV)-II, dated 1-1-1997.] or who has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
4 WA-863-2023
awarded the Indian Police Medal, or the President's Police Medal and Fire

Services Medal for Gallantry, or for distinguished service or for meritorious
service, if he considers him suitable for promotion. The number of officers
promoted under this rule shall not exceed 10 per cent of their strength.
Similarly the Inspector General of Police may promote a Platoon
Commander to the post of Company Commander or Company Second-in-
Command on similar grounds if he finds him suitable for promotion to the
rank."
7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and another
Vs. Sanjay Shukla in SLP (C) No. 1040 of 2021 dated 27.03.2023 held
that out-of-turn promotion under Regulation 70A of the Madhya Pradesh
Police Regulations cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Although the
claim for such promotion must be considered objectively in accordance with
the parameters prescribed under the Regulation, once the competent
committee, after due consideration of all relevant aspects, takes a conscious
decision supported by cogent reasons, judicial interference is limited. The
Court can interfere only where such decision is palpably arbitrary or
perverse.
8. It was further held that no parity can be claimed in matters of out-
of-turn promotion, as the facts and circumstances differ from officer to
officer and incident to incident. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set
aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
directing grant of out-of-turn promotion, holding that the High Court had
exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review. The appeal filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
5 WA-863-2023
State was allowed.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
10. The claim of the respondent for out-of-turn promotion is founded
upon Rule 56(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1973”). A plain reading of the said
provision makes it clear that the power to grant out-of-turn promotion is
vested in the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, who may promote a
Constable to the rank of Head Constable, if such Constable has distinguished
himself in anti-dacoity operations, law and order situations, shooting
competitions or in some other field of duty, or has been awarded the
specified police medals for gallantry, distinguished service or meritorious
service, and is considered suitable for promotion. The provision further
restricts the number of officers who may be promoted under this Rule to ten
per cent of their strength.
11. The expression “may promote” employed in Rule 56(3) clearly
indicates that the provision confers a discretionary power upon the competent
authority and does not create an indefeasible or enforceable right in favour of
every police personnel who performs an act of bravery or renders assistance
to a person in distress. The grant of out-of-turn promotion is, therefore, not
an automatic consequence of an act of courage or public service. The claim
must satisfy the requirements of the Rule, and the competent authority must
also be satisfied as to the suitability of the concerned police personnel for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
6 WA-863-2023
such promotion.

12. In the present case, the incident relied upon by the respondent
undoubtedly reflects an act of courage and humanity. On noticing that his
neighbours, Ms. Nalini Bai and Mr. Francis Joseph, had caught fire, the
respondent rushed to their rescue, extinguished the fire and arranged for their
treatment. His conduct was appreciated by the Department, and he was
accordingly awarded a cash reward of Rs.1,000/-. However, the fact that the
respondent performed a commendable act of bravery and received a cash
reward does not, by itself, establish his entitlement to out-of-turn promotion
under Rule 56(3) of the Rules of 1973.
13. The crucial question is whether the incident falls within the
categories contemplated by Rule 56(3). The Rule does not provide for out-
of-turn promotion merely on account of any act of bravery performed by a
police personnel in his personal capacity. The relevant expression is that the
officer must have distinguished himself in anti-dacoity operations, law and
order situations, shooting competitions or “in some other field of duty”. The
words “some other field of duty” have to be read in the context of the
preceding expressions and the object of the provision. They contemplate
distinguished performance in a field connected with the duties and functions
of the police force. The expression cannot be interpreted so broadly as to
include every meritorious or humanitarian act performed by a police
personnel, irrespective of its connection with his official duties.
14. In the present matter, the incident admittedly occurred after 8:30
p.m., when the respondent was not on duty. It did not arise out of any anti-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
7 WA-863-2023
dacoity operation, law and order situation or other official assignment

entrusted to him. Nor does the record indicate that the respondent was
awarded any of the medals specifically contemplated under Rule 56(3). The
cash reward of Rs.1,000/- granted to him in recognition of his act of bravery
cannot be equated with the medals specified in the Rule, nor can such
reward, by itself, bring the incident within the ambit of the provision. Thus,
notwithstanding the commendable nature of the respondent's conduct, the
incident does not satisfy the statutory requirements for consideration of out-
of-turn promotion under Rule 56(3).
15. It is also relevant that the respondent's claim was considered by
the competent authority and, upon reconsideration pursuant to the direction
issued by this Court on 07.09.2020, the authority passed a fresh order dated
14.12.2020 holding that the incident did not fall within the ambit of Rule
56(3). The mere fact that the respondent had been awarded a cash reward
does not render the said decision arbitrary or perverse. Recognition of an act
of bravery by way of a cash reward and eligibility for out-of-turn promotion
are two distinct matters governed by different considerations. The former
cannot, by itself, confer a right to the latter.
16. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Sanjay Shukla, arising out
of SLP (C) No.1040 of 2021, decided on 27.03.2023. While considering the
claim for out-of-turn promotion under Regulation 70A of the Madhya
Pradesh Police Regulations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such
promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The competent authority is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
8 WA-863-2023
required to assess the claim objectively with reference to the parameters

prescribed under the relevant provision. Once the competent authority, upon
consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, takes a conscious
decision supported by cogent reasons, the scope of judicial interference is
limited. Interference by the Court would be justified only where the decision
is palpably arbitrary or perverse. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held
that no parity can be claimed in matters of out-of-turn promotion, as the facts
and circumstances relating to each officer and each incident may differ.
17. Although the aforesaid decision concerned Regulation 70A of
the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, the principle laid down therein
regarding the discretionary nature of out-of-turn promotion and the limited
scope of judicial review is equally applicable while examining a claim under
Rule 56(3) of the Rules of 1973. The competent authority is required to
examine whether the particular act falls within the prescribed categories and
whether the officer is suitable for such promotion. The Court cannot
substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority merely
because it considers the officer's act deserving of greater appreciation.
18. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition,
principally relied upon the respondent's act of bravery, the cash reward
granted to him and the fact that certain other police personnel had allegedly
been granted out-of-turn promotion for acts considered less significant. In
our considered view, such an approach does not accord with the statutory
scheme of Rule 56(3). The comparison with the cases of other police
personnel could not, by itself, furnish a legal basis for directing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
9 WA-863-2023
respondent's promotion. Each claim for out-of-turn promotion has to be

examined with reference to the nature of the act, the circumstances in which
it was performed and the requirements of the governing provision. An order
granting such promotion in another case, even if considered erroneous,
cannot create a right in favour of the respondent to claim similar treatment
contrary to the Rule.
19. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent's conduct in
rescuing the two persons was commendable and deserves appreciation.
However, judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision taken
by the competent authority and not with substituting the Court's own
assessment of the degree of bravery displayed by an employee. Unless the
decision of the authority is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or contrary to the
governing Rule, the Court would not be justified in directing the grant of out-
of-turn promotion. In the present case, the respondent's act, though deserving
of recognition, does not fall within the categories contemplated under Rule
56(3), and the decision of the competent authority rejecting his claim cannot
be said to suffer from any such infirmity.
20. Consequently, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge
granting promotion to the respondent with effect from 08.05.2000, i.e., the
date of submission of his representation, is also unsustainable. In the absence
of any statutory entitlement to out-of-turn promotion, the respondent could
not have been granted retrospective promotion merely on the basis of his
representation or the passage of time during which he pursued his claim.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
10 WA-863-2023
Single Judge exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by

substituting his own assessment for that of the competent authority and
directing the grant of out-of-turn promotion, despite the respondent's case not
falling within the ambit of Rule 56(3) of the Rules of 1973. The impugned
order dated 16.08.2022, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
22. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated
16.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.24814/2003 is set
aside, and the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the competent authority
rejecting the respondent's claim for out-of-turn promotion is upheld. No
order as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:46:56