Claimants for out-of-turn promotion for exemplary service must first seek administrative redressal through departmental representation.

The petitioners, comprising two Head Constables and seven Constables serving in the Chhattisgarh Police, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for "out of turn promotion".

They claimed to have rendered exemplary service during Naxal operations.

The petitioners contended that while other officers involved in similar operations received such benefits, they were excluded from consideration.

The State raised a preliminary objection, noting that the petitioners had approached the High Court without first filing a formal representation before the competent departmental authorities.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a court direction for out of turn promotion under the relevant service rules without first exhausting departmental remedies.

2. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to examine the petitioners' claims of exemplary service for the purpose of promotion.

Rule 56(3) of the Special Armed Force Rules, 1973, and Regulation 70 of the Police Regulations.

These provisions establish the legal framework for granting out of turn promotions to police personnel who render "exemplary services" under specific contingencies and circumstances defined within the rules.

The Court observed that the statutory rules (SAF Rules 1973 and Police Regulations) create a legal obligation for the respondents to examine claims of exemplary service to determine if the criteria for out of turn promotion are met.

The Court noted that the petitioners moved the High Court prematurely before allowing the executive to exercise its discretion.

The Court reasoned that the grievance is administrative in nature and must first be adjudicated by the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) through a formal representation process.

The Court emphasized that if a claim for parity with other officers is raised, the competent authority is duty-bound to examine the merits of such a claim in accordance with the law.

It directed the petitioners to submit a "comprehensive representation" along with relevant documents to Respondent Nos. 2 (DGP) and 3 (ADGP). The respondents are ordered to consider and decide upon said representation in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date of receipt.