Acw @WWMW 7/0’ E 200 m WW fE‘z’tW mmmm ‘ $swmanésr SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan $hrivastava, J. 31-01-2011 Shri T‘ K. TiwarL counsei forthe petitioner. c‘ t Shri Satish Gupta‘ Govt. Advo e for the State. Heard. w By this petition, the petitioner eeks review of order dated 29-07- 2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) 0.3169 of 2005, Learned counsei for the petitio er submits that the petitioner in thts petition had ciaimed out of turn pro otion in View of the provisions of Regulation-70A of the Police Regula ions as respondents No6 & 7 were also rewarded in anti dacoity case along with the petitioner but the petitioner was exciuded from the ben fit of out of turn promotion whereas . respondents No.6 & 7 were promoted. He further submits that the petitioner was recommended for out of turn pr motion for the same work for which respondents No.6 & 7 were conside and granted out of turn promotion, as is evident from order dated 16-06-1 99 (Annexure P—11 8: 12) passed by the Director General of Police, Bhopal He further submits that order dated 16-06-1 999 (Annexure P41 & 12) do s not say that out of turn promotion was granted to respondents No.6 & on the basis of their seniority and more number of rewards. Learned co nsel argued that this Court recorded that respondents No.6 & 7 have been granted promotion not only because they are seniors but also because the earned more rewards as compared to the petitioner without consideri g the orders dated 16-06-1999 (Annexure P-‘ll & 12). Learned coun ei further argued that the petitioner t had fully discharged his burden th he is more meritorious than the 1" I “y. lifts ‘étiiir r respondents No.6 & 7 and the respondents have disputed the sama, as a regult of which, it is the duw of the respcndent authorities to place on record complete material to substantiate their stand taken in the Courts in the order passed on 29-07—201 0, this Court recorded that from the return of the respondér’its‘Nop & 7, il is found that respondents No.68: 7 have been given promotion not only because they are seniors but also because they earned more rewards as compared to the petitioners This Court further recorded that it is the burden of the petitioner to establish that his record is better than respondents No.6 & 7, which the petitioner has failed to discharge and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the assertion of the ofhciat respondents that respondents No.6 8: 7 have earned more awards than the petitio . The submissions which ha now been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in the backg ound of the factual aspect were also before this Court for consideration. T e submission of learned counsel is that in respect of the same incide ce, the petitioner as well as the respondents No.6 & 7were reward d and that even thereafter; the petitioner was ignored for being taken into consideration. The ciaim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion is ased on the submission that as his work and that of respondents No.6 & was equatly meritorious, therefore, tion in view of the promotion of respondents No.6 & 7. The claim oft e petitioner was considered by this Court in the context of such submissi n. it was found that the claim of the cial respondents stated that the KL; he was also entitled for grant of pr petitioner was not established as respondents No.6 8: 7 have earned more rewards as comared to the p ..v if W has am n r v o i // Wm . RQMxo/W €%¢3*W£,l220§/%i0 W WW Wm $Wm petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim for promotion in view of the promotion of respondents M16 & 7 was :he Police Reguiations show that Moreever, Regu!ation 70-A of claim of out of turn promotion is not a matter of right and it is only when the Constables or Head Constables as iself in anti daooity operations, law itions or in some other neld of duty t’s Police Medal for Gallantry or for he considers him suitable for on would be granted. for the petitioner have already been Therefore, there is no ground to 2010 passed by this Court in not found tenable. competent authority considers that the the case may be, has distinguished hin and order situations of shooting compel or who has been awarded the Presider meritorious/dietinguished services, if promotion, than only, out ofturn promoti Submissions of learned counsel taken into consideration by this Court review of the order dated 29-07- W. P. (S)No. 31 6922005. ln the result, this review petition. has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine without notice to ott er parties 3d!- Manindra E‘Jlchan Shrivastava ‘ ’ Judge [trio afoot