Out-of-Turn Promotion Claims Require Reasoned Consideration After an Opportunity of Hearing

The petitioner sought out-of-turn promotion to Head Constable under Para 70-A of the M.P. Police Regulations, 1973, claiming that he actively participated in the police operation of 14–15 March 2007 in which gang members Jagjivan Ram and Paramjit were killed. He also relied on the promotion of 35 other persons involved in the same incident and sought promotion with consequential benefits from 7 July 2007.

The respondents maintained that he had played no active role in the encounter and was not entitled to promotion.

The petitioner asked the Court to direct consideration of his claim in light of the order in Praveen Kumar Trivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and the subsequent appellate judgment.

1. Whether the respondents had duly considered the petitioner’s claim for out-of-turn promotion under Para 70-A of the M.P. Police Regulations, 1973.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim should be reconsidered in light of the cited Praveen Kumar Trivedi decisions and the alleged participation of the petitioner in the police operation.

Para 70-A of the M.P. Police Regulations, 1973, was the provision under which the petitioner sought out-of-turn promotion.

The Court directed the competent authority to consider the claim in light of the order dated 13 April 2023 in W.P. No. 506/2014 and the judgment dated 30 July 2026 in W.A. No. 1503/2024, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion or consequential benefits.

The Court found that, although the respondents had asserted that the petitioner did not actively participate in the encounter, they had not passed an appropriate order duly considering his claim.

Given the petitioner’s contention that 35 persons involved in the same incident had received promotion, the competent authority was required to assess whether he actively participated in the operation and to consider the cited Trivedi decisions.

The Court left the merits of entitlement to the authority and required it to consider whether the original petitioner had died during the pendency of the petition.

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation with copies of the cited Trivedi decisions; the competent authority must decide the claim by a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order, after affording a personal hearing and considering whether the original petitioner had died during the proceedings.

If found entitled, consequential benefits are to be extended; otherwise, the authority must give reasons for rejecting the claim.