Constable’s Off-Duty Rescue Of Neighbours From Fire Didn’t Qualify For Out-Of-Turn Promotion: MP HC

The respondent sought out-of-turn promotion to Head Constable under Rule 56(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973, based on his rescue of two neighbours whose clothes had caught fire. The State awarded him a cash reward of Rs.1,000, but the competent authority found him unsuitable; on reconsideration, it concluded that the incident did not fall within Rule 56(3).

The Single Judge allowed the respondent’s writ petition, directing promotion from 8 May 2000, with consequential pensionary benefits but no back wages.

The State appealed, challenging the promotion direction and the Single Judge’s reliance on the respondent’s act of bravery and comparisons with other personnel.

Rule 56(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973, permits the competent authority to grant out-of-turn promotion to specified ranks where an officer has distinguished himself in listed areas—including anti-dacoity operations, law-and-order situations, shooting competitions or another field of duty—or has received specified police medals, and is considered suitable; the number of promotions is capped at ten per cent of the relevant strength.

The words “may promote” confer discretion and do not create an enforceable right to promotion; “some other field of duty” must be read in the context of police duties.

Under State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Sanjay Shukla, out-of-turn promotion is not a matter of right, judicial interference with a reasoned decision of the competent authority is limited to cases of palpable arbitrariness or perversity, and parity cannot ordinarily be claimed because each case depends on its own facts.

The Division Bench accepted that the respondent’s rescue was commendable and had been recognised by a cash reward, but held that this did not itself establish eligibility under Rule 56(3).

The incident occurred after 8:30 p.m., while the respondent was off duty, and was not connected to an anti-dacoity operation, a law-and-order situation or another official assignment; nor had he received a medal specified by the Rule.

The competent authority had reconsidered the claim and given a reasoned decision that the incident fell outside the Rule, which was not shown to be arbitrary or perverse.

The alleged promotion of other personnel could not independently establish entitlement, and the Single Judge impermissibly substituted its assessment for that of the competent authority.

Without a statutory entitlement, the respondent could not receive retrospective promotion merely because he had made a representation or pursued his claim over time.

It allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 16 August 2022, upheld the competent authority’s order dated 14 December 2020, and made no order as to costs.