CWP No. 8370 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8370 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 28, 2009 Sarjit Singh, Head Constable No. 404/RWR ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Rao D.S.Nirban, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the respondents in granting him commendation certificate instead of ORP promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argue that the action of the petitioner in confronting dangerous criminals and arresting them after altercation where he was injured by stones and with clubs was an action of such gallantry that the petitioner should have been granted promotion in ORP. Further argues that a bare perusal of the recommendation Annexure P-1 by the Superintendent of Police and Annexure P-2 by the Inspector General of Police clearly shows that the action of the petitioner fell within the policy for ORP circulated vide letter CWP No. 8370 of 2009 2 dated 27.3.2008 by the Government of Haryana. After this recommendation the matter was considered by the Committee which has been formed to look into such cases and the respondent No.1 passed order on the recommendation of that Committee to the effect that the petitioner should be given Commendation Certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me a copy of the policy which is taken on record as mark 'A'. The criteria mentioned in the policy is in the following terms:- “The ORP should be given only in recognition of some “Gallant Action” by the member of police force. The “Gallant Action” means an act of bravery of the highest order by a police officer/official, in the face of imminent danger to his own life and displaying the act with a view to maintaining peace and public order, protecting public life and property and serving larger public interest i.e. apprehending and taking prompt legal action in face to face encounters with terrorists/militants/desperadoes/ anti-social elements and violent/furious mobs or similar- action during natural calamity. In other words, the act of bravery should be such which is suitable for making a recommendation for Gallantry Medal or Prime Minister's Life Saving Medal. In addition, the acts of bravery may also be recognised by granting Commendation Certificates along with suitable cash rewards.” There is no allegation that either the committee or the CWP No. 8370 of 2009 3 respondent No.1 had any animus against the petitioner. In my opinion awards such as these can never be claimed as of right and it cannot be argued that the action of some other person was equally brave to that he has been granted a higher benefit. By definition there can be no mathematical computation of acts of exceptional bravery and in the absence of any animus decision of such matters would have to be left to the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that he has given a legal notice and that he would be satisfied if a direction is given to respondent No.1 to decide the legal notice. As mentioned above in my considered opinion no right inheres in any person to claim any reward , therefore, it is not necessary that a legal notice issued in this regard must be decided. Interference by Courts in such matters would not have any productive effect since it would necessarily imply substitution of the judgement of the Court with the competent authority which can never be within the ambit of judicial review. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 28 , 2009 sunita