C.W.P. No. 10738 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 10738 of 2002 Date of Decision: 12.08.2010 HC Jai Singh .... Petitioner Versus Director General of Police, Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent – State 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present petition, petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to consider case of the petitioner and to promote the petitioner on the post of ASI. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that in June 2000, petitioner was posted as Investigating Officer in Police Station, Tosham and was on petrol duty at Hansi Road on 18.6.2000 alongwith other officer/officials namely Baljit Singh ASI, Rattan Singh HC, Mahender Singh HC, Wazir Singh Constable and Bhim Singh C.W.P. No. 10738 of 2002 2 Constable in a Govt. jeep driven by Jaswant Singh Constable; Police party received secret information that a hard-core criminal Jitender Jogi resident of Hansi with his associates was hiding in the fields of Chiranji Lal; Police party was formed without loss of time and surrounded the area; Hard-core criminal Jitender Jogi and his associates fired at the police party but the police party did not receive any injury; Police party also shot a fire which hit the shoulder of Jitender Jogi and ultimately the said encounter was successful and hard-core criminals got arrested. The names of three members of the police party were recommended for one rank promotion as a recognition of professional excellence acts of bravery under policy of the State Govt. contained in Memo dated 22.12.1999 by S.P. Bhiwani. The Director General of Police vide letter dated 24.1.2001 approved the name of Baljit Singh ASI, Rattan Singh HC and Constable Wazir Singh for promotion to the rank of SI, ASI and HC, respectively under policy of the Government. On the basis of recommendation of the Director General of Police, Baljit Singh, Rattan Singh and Wazir Singh were given one rank promotion while petitioner was not given any promotion. Petitioner earlier filed writ petition before this Court being CWP No. 377 of 2002 which was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order on the representation of the petitioner. Representation of the petitioner, thereafter, was considered and rejected vide order dated 17.4.2002. Feeling aggrieved petitioner once again approached this Court. 3. Undisputedly, petitioner name was never recommended by S.P. for promotion under the State policy. Undisputedly there C.W.P. No. 10738 of 2002 3 were 6 police personnel in the police party when the encounter took place with Jetinder Jogi hard-core criminal. Undisputedly out of six police personnel only three were recommended for out of turn promotion. From the petition this Court is not able to find out any material which can suggest that recommendation made by S.P. to give out of turn promotion to three police personnels out of six is discriminatory. Recommendation is always based upon subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not supposed to go into the question of fact what active role petitioner has played in the encounter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Deputy Superintendent of Police vide letter dated 28.2.2002 has recommended name of the petitioner for out of turn promotion. 5. I have carefully perused the letter of Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 28.2.2002, it only suggests that Deputy Superintendent of Police wanted to know from the other officials as to why name of the petitioner was not recommended. He himself recorded in the letter dated 28.2.2002 that no record is available with him for recommending the name of the petitioner. No record is placed before this Court to show what active role petitioner has played in the said encounter. 6. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 12.08.2010 JUDGE reena