C ^ f»°^— IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. ^-iLf ^^ /2007 PETITIONER ^s^ ^•••^^.^' 'l^-' ^c-^-' • ..»'' ^i^ RESPONDENTS Manoj Pandey, S/o Shri Devcharan Pandey, Aged about 45 years, ••• R/o Village Baima Nagoi, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS l." State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G) 2. Director General of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Raipur, (C.G.) 3. Superintendent of Police, Police District Beejapur, Chhattisgarh 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Meertur, District Beejapur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SD^ 'c^s- to &• ° OP^ \9P^ ¥- .. te? ..t-r^"^. HIGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 4467 <rf'20Q7 , , PETmONER : Manoj Pandey. VERSUS RESPONDENT8 :State ofChhattisgarii & OflKrs. WMT PE'm'ION UNDER AR11CLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Boit'Me Shri Satish K. Asirihotei. J. Present: Shri J.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A forlfae State/respoadents. ORALORmER (Passed on 16th day of MarcA, 2010) 1. Leamed eounsel appeariag for the petftioaer suhtnits fhat in an encounter which took plaee on 30.11.2006 between tiie poliee and tfae naxalities, Ihe petitioner, woridng as Head Ctmstafale, has siiown exemplary bravery. Accordin^y, the name of the petitiona- was recommended by the respondent No. 4 for out of tum pKanotioa an 07.12.2006 (Aimexure P/2). Therealter, on s<autiay, tiie name ofttie petitioner was deleted and the respondent No. 3 recommended foin- names for out of tum promotion aad the name <rf the pettti<mer for award ofcash prize. 2. Shri Gupta finlfafir submits Ifaat tiie petttioner has shown exemplay bravery and he has been denied die baiefit ofout often pa-<»Mtionto the post ofAssistaat Sub Inspector ofPolice, granted to other smiilariy situated Head Coastables. 3. Qn the other hand, Shri Bhatia, leamed Deputy Governmart Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that out oftum promotioa depends on reconunendation inade by the Supamtendent ofPoliee wilfa prior consent of Ifae Direetor General of Poliee. te tiie enwuntw, as aforestated, the respondeat No. 3 i.e. Supaintffltdtent rf Police, Byapva, himselfhas led the police party and tte tespcodent No. 3, cn scrutmy of .-V. the reeommendatt<m made by &e respMident No. 4, S.H.O., found oaly four persons namely Sunderlal Bandhe, B. Nagesh Rao, Oyai»n<tea Patel and RatB Pankaj Mishra tw oirt oftom iM'amotion. Assw^a^y, tiie reconnnendatitai was rnade and tfie petitiona- was not fouad fit fw out of tum promotion as he has not shown exenylaay bravery, like othera. 4. Considered tfae rival cententions of ui^ed by leamed eounsel fer tfa® parties, perusedthe pleadings and documeats appendedlfaereto. 5. Regulaticm 70-A ofthe M.P. Police Re^ilati<ais, reads as uanda". "70-A. Notwitiistanffing anyttHMg cantained in Reyilatioo ), a Constable may be promoted to Ifae isaak. ot Head Constable by Ifae Superintaident ofPolice wife the priw approval ofthe Directms General (rf&e Police aad a Head Constable to Ihe rank of Assistant Sid> Inspectw tey •Qae Deputy Inspector Gensral of Police wdh fl» pri«M- apjwoval of the Director Gsaeral of Pdice if he has distinguished himself in airti dacoity opaations, law and <wder situatiwis or shoeting c<Miq»ettttonsos msxas other field of duty or who faas beeo awar^d the President's Police Medal for Oallaatry or fw EBCTit<w»us/ distinguished serviees, if he eonsida-s him suitaNe fw promoti<m. Snmlarly tfae Inq»ectorOaieral of Police saay promote an Assistant Sub Lupector to the rank of Sub Inspeetw aad a Sub-Inspeetor to Ihe raik af an faspector QB sinular groumte if found aiitable for promotiini and subjeet to the prior approval of Ifae Direetor Qeawsd of Police. The number of QfBeers pKMnoted auder tfais Regulation shdl m^ exceed 10 per cent" 6. It is a non-obstante clause vAich inter alia p-ovides that a Head Constable may be promoted to the rank af Assistant Sub laspector widi die prior approval of 1fae Director 0« ral of PoMce, if he has distinguished himself in service, as atoestated. Thae is IM) ffwvsmce Ifaat Ifaere was not proper application ofnrind. It is tiie concerned QepSty Inspectw General of Police and thereafter, the Dn'eetor Omerai of .Police wliose aj^aroval is neeessary to consider individudl cases fw tel %. a Anrit -3- pant of out of tum pFcanotiCTi. It is aot tfie case Ihat Ifaey have nc applied tiieir nrind properly. 7. This Court cannot grant any reliefwhich dq>«idsoa Ihe pesfwmsaee of the prtitioner in an anti-naxalite cyeration and it is for &e senior officas to assess Ifae suftabiltty and perfbnnaiee ofexsaipltBy laawry inlhefield. 8. The petitioner »s deriving the statutcay ri^tf Smn tbe provisioas of regulati<m 70-A. It is clear on pwusal of fte provisi<m that regulatiai )-A is an enabling poviAm which esm be eaiereised in excqrtional cases by Ihe Direclcff Gena-al of Poliee a^ othw aufteaitto to encourage poUce personnel showing extraorduiMy eoanniteteat aad exemplary teavay. The petitiona- has not esteMished aay statotory ri^rt. Thais, he cannot canplain of l»'each of sssy statotwy ri^A AceOTdingly, the petiti<aier isnctf entitled to aiy relief^ tfus C^BUrt m exM-cise of writ jiuisdiction uadw Article 2^ ofti C<astitotiCTi of India. 9. "nnis, the petitimi being devmd ofmerit isaee<adi^y (Ssnassed. 10. There didl be no order asto costs. Sd/- SaushK-Agnaiom Judge "^'"'^^,3^