Competent authority must consider promotion-related representation under applicable rules and issue a reasoned order.

The 29 petitioners are Constables serving in Bihar Special Armed Police-16, described as a dying-cadre battalion of the Bihar Special Armed Police.

They were recruited as Constables on 11 October 2010 through the same advertisement and selection process intended for ex-servicemen.

Of the 55 Constables appointed in the first batch, 25 completed Senior Programme Course (SPC) training and were thereafter promoted as Havildars and subsequently as Sub-Inspectors.

The petitioners alleged that they were denied similar promotional opportunities because the SPC training programme was discontinued during the COVID-19 pandemic and no training programme was conducted for them.

Although the authorities issued a letter dated 30 April 2026 directing special training for batches of 36 Constables, the petitioners’ cases were allegedly not considered.

The petitioners submitted a representation dated 11 May 2026 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police (Central Range), Patna, but no favourable action was taken, leading to the present writ petition.

Whether the petitioners’ representation seeking consideration for special/SPC training and consequential promotional opportunities was required to be considered by the competent police authority in accordance with the applicable rules.

Whether, in the circumstances, the High Court should issue a direction requiring the competent authority to decide the pending representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court applied the general public-law principle that a competent statutory or administrative authority must consider a duly submitted representation in accordance with the applicable service rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to training or promotion, but directed the competent authority to examine the claim in light of the pleadings, the applicable rules, and the relevant administrative materials.

The petitioners alleged discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated Constables who had completed SPC training and secured subsequent promotions, contending that their exclusion resulted from the non-convening of training during the COVID-19 period rather than any individual disqualification.

The State did not contest the appropriateness of consideration by the competent authority and submitted that the petitioners had already approached that authority.

Since the representation dated 11 May 2026 was pending before Respondent No. 5 and had also been forwarded to higher authorities, the Court considered it appropriate to adopt a limited mandamus approach: instead of deciding the entitlement to training or promotion itself, it required the competent authority to examine the claim under the applicable rules and provide reasons for its decision.

Respondent No. 5—the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police (Central Range), Patna—was directed to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 11 May 2026 in light of the pleadings and applicable rules and to pass a speaking and reasoned order, preferably within eight weeks from receipt or production of a copy of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.