1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No.5265 of 2018 1 - Rajendra Singh Kshatriya S/o Balu Singh Khastriya Aged About 30 Years Presently Working As Head Constable (1079), O/o Superintendent Of Police, Kanker, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Basatar Range, Lalbag, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/07/2025 Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to case of the -2- petitioner from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11/06/2018 by declaring the same to be illegal and inoperative in law. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from 03/10/2013 when the other colleagues were promoted, with all the consequential benefits. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being a member of the police department, participated in the naxal operation on 16.03.2011 as he was posted on the post of Constable at the relevant time. He would further submit that the name of the petitioner was recommended for promotion by the Inspector General of Police vide recommendation order dated 03.10.2013 along with two other police officials. He would also submit that the other two police officials were promoted but the name of the petitioner was not considered. He would contend that the petitioner filed WPS No.3763 of 2015 wherein a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to decide the representation. Mr. Mishra would further contend that the representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 11.06.2018 on the ground that the petitioner was granted a reward instead of promotion. He would also contend that the decision taken by the respondent authority is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government 3 Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Mishra. He would submit that the petitioner was granted a reward pursuant to Regulation 78 of the Police Regulation. He would further submit that though the name of the petitioner was recommended for promotion but as the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 10.08.2013, the department declined to grant a second promotion. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the documents available on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the naxal operation along with other members of the force. The name of the petitioner and two other police officials namely, H.R. Yadu and Sanjay Ursa was recommended for promotion by the Inspector General of Police vide order dated 03.10.2013. The names of H.R. Yadu and Sanjay Ursa were considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and Head Constable respectively but the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 on 11.06.2018 on the ground that the petitioner was granted a reward of Rs.10,000/-. It is also stated that while the petitioner was posted on the post of Constable, he participated in the naxal operation but after promotion to the post of Head Constable, he never participated in any such operation therefore, he cannot be promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. 6. The reason assigned by respondent No. 2 appears to be erroneous. The petitioner participated in the naxal operation on 16.03.2011. The other members who participated in that movement have -4- been promoted to the next higher post but the name of the petitioner has not been considered only on the ground that earlier he was promoted to the post of Head Constable and as a Head Constable he did not participate in any naxal operation. 7. The claim of the petitioner is based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India because as in the same incident, other police personnel have been granted out-of-turn promotion. It is not a case where the petitioner did not participate in any naxal operation and there is nothing in the impugned order negativing the role played by the petitioner. 8. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, in my opinion, the petitioner is equally entitled to out of turn promotion as has been granted to Mr. H.R. Yadu and Mr. Sanjay Ursa. 9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to take appropriate steps forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha