No bravery, no early promotion: Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses cop’s plea

Findings

• Delivering the judgment, Justice Bhatti noted that while there was a statement suggesting the petitioner’s presence at the scene, there was no material evidence attributing any extraordinary act of bravery to him.
• The court emphasised that merely being part of a team involved in a risky operation does not automatically entitle a personnel to out-of-turn promotion. It underscored that such promotions are contingent upon clearly established acts of exceptional courage, supported by records.
• “An extraordinary act of bravery on the part of a member of the disciplined force is a crucial factor for consideration of his case for out-of-turn promotion. Such an act of bravery constitutes one of the primary considerations for grant of the said benefit,” the Madhya Pradesh High Court said.

‘Denial of promotion since 2002’

Constable Dubey had approached the court with a writ petition under Article 226 (power of high courts to issue writs), seeking out-of-turn promotion on par with other personnel allegedly rewarded for their role in a high-risk operation in October 2002.

Dubey claimed that he was part of the police team that recovered nearly eight tonnes of dynamite looted by Naxalites from a truck en route to the Malajkhand Copper Mines. He argued that despite participating in the operation, he was denied promotion while several similarly placed personnel were granted the benefit.

Regulation 70-A: Discretionary, not entitlement

The Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that Regulation 70-A of the Police Regulations, which governs out-of-turn promotions, does not confer a vested right but leaves the decision to administrative discretion based on merit and gallantry.

In the absence of substantiated evidence of exceptional bravery, the court held that the rejection of Dubey’s representation was justified and legally sound. The court categorically observed that “no claim of discrimination can be invoked” in matters governed by Regulation 70-A.

No parity

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument of discrimination, the Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on precedent to hold that parity cannot be claimed in cases of out-of-turn promotions, as each case depends on individual acts and circumstances. It cited Supreme Court jurisprudence to reiterate that differences in conduct, role, and contribution make uniform treatment inappropriate in such matters.

Dubey argued that he was part of the team that undertook the risky operation and was unfairly denied promotion despite similar contributions.

The court thus examined whether such promotions can be claimed as a right or on grounds of discrimination under Regulation 70-A of the Police Regulations.

State’s stand

Opposing the plea, the state government submitted that although around 80 personnel were involved in the operation, only a select few demonstrating exceptional courage were granted out-of-turn promotion. Others received lesser rewards, while some, including the petitioner, were found to have performed routine duties not warranting special recognition.

The state further contended that there was no documentary evidence, such as official records or entries, establishing Dubey’s presence in the core operational team or demonstrating any specific act of gallantry.

The state contended that out-of-turn promotions are granted only for clearly established acts of exceptional bravery, and that the petitioner neither had documentary proof of his role, nor evidence of gallantry.

Petition dismissed

Concluding that the plea lacked merit, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no case was made out for interference. “Ex-consequenti, the writ petition… is hereby dismissed,” the court ordered, without imposing costs.