[2026:RJ-JP:498] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9501/2005 Sh. Manohar Lal Kukad, aged 51 years, S/o Sh. Deshraj Kukad, at present Circle Inspector, Police Department, (ACD) Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General of Police, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar with Mr. Shubham Rohila For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/01/2026 1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a direction against the respondents to grant him benefit of out of turn promotion under the provisions of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rule of 1989') on account of undertaking exceptional and commendable work of arresting the accused of inter-State gang of thieves and murderers. It is submitted by the counsel that the petitioner was initially appointed on 03.07.1973 on the post of Constable and after getting regular promotion, he was promoted on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. While he was posted as Sub-Inspector and officer in charge of Police Station Rawatsar in February, 2000 on registration of one FIR, investigation was [2026:RJ-JP:498] (2 of 7) [CW-9501/2005] initiated by him and on account of his exceptional work, the accused persons who were instrumental in so many States in the offence of theft as well as murders were arrested. Such commendable work of the petitioner was not only appreciated by his Higher Officers but even recommendation was made to grant petitioner benefit of a special nomination for promotion, out of turn in view of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989 is an exception to the general procedure for promotion and it starts from non obstante clause for conferring powers upon the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police to nominate the candidates for Promotion Cadre Course for higher rank up to the Sub-Inspector, confining to 10 per cent of vacancies to be filled in by promotion in a particular year, provided such candidates have shown outstanding work in the anti-dacoity, anti- smuggling or in any special field of police work. In the instant case, where the petitioner has exposed the organized crime of inter-State Gang and also arrested the accused, when recommendation was made by his Higher Officers, the Director General of Police was under an obligation to consider his case in the light of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules 1989 however, instead of granting him benefit of special nomination for Promotion Cadre Course, merely a cash award of Rs.5000/- was granted to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in other cases in similar circumstances, Shri Ramanand Sharma, Anwar Khan, Vijay Shankar Sharma, Anoop Singh and Chandra Purohit have been nominated specially for Promotion Cadre Course [2026:RJ-JP:498] (3 of 7) [CW-9501/2005] in view of Rule 28 however, without there being any specific distinguishable feature, the petitioner has been deprived of consideration under Rule 28 whereas, even the office of Governor of Rajasthan has recommended for considering the case of the petitioner on the basis of parity. Petitioner submits that although, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has retired, yet in cases, candidature is considered for a special nomination for Promotion Cadre Course, he may be granted notional benefits on promotion. 4. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was opposed by the respondents and reply was filed narrating therein that, the matter of the petitioner was considered by the Department for out of turn promotion, the work performed by the petitioner was not found to be a case of out of turn at higher level in the Department and thus, the petitioner has been handsomely rewarded for his performance. It is also stated that out of turn promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in the circumstances where, the petitioner has already been rewarded by giving cash price of Rs.5000/-, no further right can be claimed by the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Petitioner has come out with a case that his outstanding performance has been appreciated by his Higher Officer and a recommendation for out of turn promotion was also made. In the recommendation letter, the entire incident has been given in detail and the courageous as well as brave act of the petitioner has been highlighted, which has given relief to the public at large. Petitioner has also given specific examples where [2026:RJ-JP:498] (4 of 7) [CW-9501/2005] similar benefit of special nomination for Promotion Cadre Course has been given in other cases for the similar act. Such facts have not been denied by the respondents in their reply. 7. This Court finds that the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents is totally vague and evasive. Nothing has been given in the reply in order to clarify as to whether, case of the petitioner was considered in the light of guidelines given under Rule 28 of Rules of 1989 or not. It has not even been specified as to how many vacancies were available in the particular year for being considered for special nomination for promotion under Rule 28, nor have the respondents placed any documents on record to show that the case of the petitioner was properly considered. Merely, making any vague assertion in the reply without there being any particulars, such consideration cannot be taken as legal consideration in the light of the Rule. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad. Yunus Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) WLC (Raj.) 714, para 9 and 10 of the said judgment are relevant and being reproduced as under: 9. Since promotion file of Constable Khem Singh could not be produced despite out directions, we may infer that the DGP gave promotion to Constable Khem Singh considering his special role in recovering the idol. Although role of appellant was awarded only case prize. Two similarly situated persons were treated differently by the DGP for the reasons best known to him. Nothing has been brought on record to show why Rule 28-A should not be applied in favour of the appellant. The DGP is expected to implement the mandate of Rule 28- A fairly and uniformly. Their Lordships of the Court in State of Haryana Vs. Gurucharan Singh [2004 (12) SCC 540] observed as under: "...However, at the same time it is clear that the Government having taken a policy decision, must implement that policy decision fairly and uniformly. It is [2026:RJ-JP:498] (5 of 7) [CW-9501/2005] not open to the Government to discriminate between persons similarly situated..." 10. It is unfortunate that pick and choose method has been applied by the DGP in implementing Rule 28-A. Even representation of the appellant was not properly considered. No reasons have been assigned as to why the cash award was considered appropriate and why promotion was not given to the appellant. It is no doubt true that discretion to promote constable to the post of Head Constable vested in the DGP but the discretion ought to have been exercised judicially, fairly and uniformly. It was not open to the DGP to discriminate between the persons similarly situated. The act of DGP in not giving promotion to the appellant is thus violative of Article 14 of he Constitution of India. 8. This Court in the case of Deravar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 (4) WLC (Raj.) 461 has considered the scheme of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1998 with regard to out of turn nomination for promotion. In para 11 of the said judgment, this Court has considered that the similar situated persons have been given benefit of nomination for out of turn promotion and some of the names are similar, which have been pointed out by the petitioner in the present writ petition also. After examining the scope and extent of Rule 28, this Court has observed as under: 16. Here in the present case, since the Director General of Police or the Committed constituted by him have failed to touch the relevant aspects of the matter and considering the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police in a rather mechanical manner, have denied such 'out of turn promotion' to the petitioner, even in the second round of consideration by them despite the directions of this Court in the first round of litigation, this Court sees no useful purpose to be served by remanding the case again to the respondents at this stage. The illustrious manner in which he discharged his duties in the year 2000-2001 have no been rewarded for long 14 years and the petitioner by now from the age of 30 years has grown upto 44 years and is till serving the same cadre of Sub-Inspector only. What motivation a Sub- Inspector of Police can have in these circumstances, if [2026:RJ-JP:498] (6 of 7) [CW-9501/2005] despite such courageous activities he cannot be suitably rewarded with an 'out of turn promotion' for which the legislation took care to enact the said Rule in the form of Rule 28 quoted above. 17. There is no denial that the instances mentioned and discussed in the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police are but true. The fair and objective consideration of these instances and recommendations based thereon ought to have definitely resulted in an 'out of turn promotion' to the petitioner under Rule 28 to the next higher post of Inspector as it satisfies the relevant criteria stipulated in the said Rule. When compared with the narration of facts and incidents for other persons in the said Office Note, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner stands on a far higher pedestal. The very fact that the petitioner was awarded several cash awards and Appreciation Certificates on various occasions, was itself enough to form a basis to give him the said 'out of turn promotion' under Rule 28 of the Rules, instead of denying the same on this very ground treating them as sufficient substitutes. 9. In the case of Arvind Bhardwaj Vs. Director General of Police, Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15143/2010 decided on 05.09.2023, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has again examined the scope of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1999 and has observed that of course, authorities have discretion under Rule 28(1) but, such discretionary powers exercised by the respondents must be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. Para 12 & 13 of the said Judgment are being reproduced as under: 12. There is no doubt that the State Government is the Appointing Authority and the discretion lies with it as per Rule 28(1) of the Rules of 1989, but such discretionary powers exercised by the government must be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory. In many countries, discretionary powers are ranted to government officials and agencies to enable them to make decisions that are necessary for the effective administration of government policies and programs. However, the exercise of these powers must be subject to certain legal and constitutional limitations to prevent abuses of [2026:RJ-JP:498] (7 of 7) [CW-9501/2005] power. The principle of non-arbitrariness requires that government officials and agencies must act in good faith and in accordance with the law when exercising discretionary powers. This means that they must have a rational basis for their decisions and must not act in a manner that is capricious, whimsical, or discriminatory. Any exercise of discretionary preferences, biases, or prejudices. 13. In the instant case, the discretion has been used by the respondents i a vague and fanciful manner. The judgments relied by the respondents are not applicable in the facts of the present case. 10. In the light of foregoing discussion as well as in view of the guidelines given earlier by this Court in the above judgments, writ petition filed by the petitioner succeeds and hereby allowed. The act of the respondents in not rightly considering case of the petitioner in the right of the Rule 28 of Rules 1989 is deprecated and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for a special nomination of Promotion Cadre Course to the post of Inspector of Police in terms of aforesaid Rule 28 of the Rules of 1989 and in case, he qualifies all the necessary exercise of Promotion Cadre Course, he shall be granted all the consequential benefits. 11. Necessary exercise is directed to be carried out within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/1