Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30899 of 1998

Advocates

For the Petitioners : Sri Yogesh Agarwal
Advocate. For the Respondent : SC.

Judges

Mr. Justice O.P. Garg

Acts

ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion (Excerpt)

Factual and Procedural Background

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order dated 3.2.1994 providing for out of turn promotion as an incentive where a police officer/official shows indomitable courage and valour, commitment and dedication to duty. Petitioners Satya Pal Singh and Natthu Singh (Constables) and Devendra Kumar and Sudesh Gupta (Sub-Inspectors) sought out of turn promotion for their role in a police raid.

A notorious criminal, Amar Pal, was active in Ghaziabad district. A special party led by Station Officer Sharad Pratap Singh (respondent No. 6), including other members (respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and the petitioners), raided Dr. Subodh Chaudhary's house on 12.5.1997. Amar Pal was killed in the encounter and illicit arms and ammunition were seized. A magisterial enquiry followed.

The Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), Ghaziabad, initially recommended all members of the raiding party for out of turn promotion (citation dated 11.12.1997). The Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.) queried whether promoting as many as eight members for a single incident was appropriate and returned the matter. Subsequent departmental reports were obtained and, on revision, the S.S.P. submitted a revised citation recommending only Sharad Pratap Singh and respondents Nos. 7 and 8 for out of turn promotion, omitting the petitioners. Respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were ultimately granted out of turn promotion with the approval of the Director General of Police dated 18.7.1998.

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the grant of out of turn promotion to respondents Nos. 6–8 and seeking quashing of that order and promotion for themselves from the same date. Counter-affidavits were filed by the department and by respondents Nos. 6–8. A rejoinder-affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners. The matter was heard at length.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether petitioners, by virtue of their participation in the encounter that led to the death of Amar Pal, have a right to out of turn promotion equivalent to that granted to respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
Whether the revised citation submitted by the S.S.P., which omitted the petitioners and recommended only respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8, was arbitrary, discriminatory or constituted impermissible "pick and choose" in violation of principles against governmental arbitrariness.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners contended that they played an identical role in the raiding party and therefore should have been granted out of turn promotion on the same grounds as respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
They alleged that the S.S.P.'s revised citation was arbitrary and reflected a pick-and-choose, hostile, discriminatory and partisan attitude by the departmental authorities.
The petitioners relied on past instances (Annexures-14 and 15) showing multiple members being given out of turn promotion in other encounters (e.g., seven policemen in an Ambrish encounter and eight in an Illam Singh encounter) to argue inconsistency and unfairness in treatment.
Initially, counsel sought quashing of respondents' promotions and promotion of petitioners; later, counsel limited the prayer to ordering out of turn promotion of the petitioners on the same basis as respondents Nos. 6–8, conceding that quashing respondents' promotions would not yield relief.

Respondents' / Department's Arguments

The department and respondents Nos. 6–8 asserted that out of turn promotion was granted to those whose role in the encounter was found better and whose display of courage and valour and dedication to duty warranted the benefit.
It was alleged (by respondents) that Amar Pal was fatally shot by respondents Nos. 6–8, who were in closest proximity and had been specifically charged with apprehending Amar Pal dead or alive, whereas the petitioners joined as reinforcements.
The respondents contended that it is not necessary to grant out of turn promotion to all participants in an encounter and that the claim of pick-and-choose by the S.S.P. was unfounded because selective recognition was based on differing roles and risks taken by individuals.
The department noted that the petitioners had nonetheless been issued certificates of appreciation and awarded cash amounts, reflecting recognition of their services though not out of turn promotion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Vijay Kumar, I.A.S. v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1988 SC 2060	The opinion groups this decision with others to represent the principle that when governmental action is challenged as arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the government must place reasons before the Court; where a prima facie case of discrimination exists, the burden is on the State to justify differential treatment and there must be a nexus between classification and the object sought to be achieved.	The court accepted the proposition from this line of decisions as a legal premise to examine whether the departmental action in the present case was arbitrary or supported by permissible classification and reasons.
Smt. Kamla Gaind v. State of Punjab and others, 1990 SCSR 282	Included in the cited group to underpin the same general rule on arbitrariness, burden of proof, and nexus for classification when governmental action is challenged.	The court treated this decision as part of the established principle it must apply in assessing the petitioners' discrimination claim.
M/s. Prick India Ltd. and another v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1994 SC 2410	Also cited among decisions outlining that the State must explain classification and that arbitrariness/unreasonableness invites scrutiny; the need for a rational nexus between classification and objective was emphasized.	The court relied on the collective authority of these decisions to require that the State justify selective promotion decisions where a plea of discrimination is made.
State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragajiv Vashi and others, AIR 1996 SC 1	Referenced as part of the jurisprudential "gamut" indicating the rule that governmental action challenged as arbitrary requires explanation and justification by the State, with burden on the State to show valid classification.	The court acknowledged and adopted the principle as applicable to the inquiry before it about the justification for differential treatment among members of the raiding party.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, (1996) 1 ESC 396 (Allahabad High Court)	Cited as a decision of the High Court consistent with the above Supreme Court pronouncements on arbitrariness, burden and nexus in governmental classification and actions involving personnel matters.	The court considered this High Court decision alongside the Supreme Court authorities in framing the legal standard to be applied to the petitioners' discrimination challenge.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the legal proposition drawn from the cited authorities that when governmental action is challenged as arbitrary or discriminatory the State must place reasons before the Court and, where a prima facie case of discrimination exists, the burden is on the State to justify differential treatment by showing a permissible classification with a nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.

Applying these principles to the facts, the court proceeded as follows:

The core factual question framed by the court was whether petitioners, by virtue of mere participation in the encounter, acquired an indefeasible entitlement to out of turn promotion equivalent to that granted to respondents Nos. 6–8.
The court held that mere participation in an encounter does not automatically confer an indefeasible right to out of turn promotion; entitlement depends on the particular role played, the valour and courage exhibited, and the situational proximity to risk at the crucial time.
The court emphasized that the departmental authorities must form a subjective satisfaction as to which individual employees deserved out of turn promotion, and that such satisfaction legitimately takes account of differences in roles — for example, who was in closest proximity to the desperado and who discharged the fatal firing.
To illustrate, the court used a logical analogy to military action: although many soldiers may participate in an engagement, gallantry awards or special recognition may properly be confined to those who occupied most dangerous positions or performed distinguishing acts; otherwise the significance of the award would be diluted.
On the facts recorded, the court noted that respondents Nos. 6–8 appeared to have been in the closest possible proximity to Amar Pal and that Amar Pal died as a result of fire shot by those respondents. It also observed that respondents 6–8 had originally been charged with the duty to apprehend Amar Pal dead or alive, while petitioners had been detailed as reinforcements.
The court further observed that the petitioners' services were not wholly unrecognised: they received certificates of appreciation and cash awards (Sub-Inspectors Rs. 4,000 each; Constables Rs. 2,250 each), indicating departmental recognition even though out of turn promotion was not accorded to them.

The analysis as included in the provided excerpt stops after these factual assessments and observations; the excerpt does not include any subsequent conclusions, final ruling language, or formal order.

Holding and Implications

This excerpt does not contain the court's final formal decision or order.

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Implications observed within the excerpt: the court endorsed the legal principle that the State must justify differential treatment where arbitrariness is alleged, but it also held (within its factual analysis) that mere participation in an encounter is not an absolute right to out of turn promotion and that distinctions based on role, proximity and risk may legitimately inform selective promotions. The excerpt does not state any broader precedent-setting holding beyond these analytical conclusions; no final directive or remedial order appears in the provided text.

Show full summary ...

Satya Pal Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others

1. With a view to boost the morale and to promote enthusiasm, devotion to duty and by way of incentive to the members of the Police force, the State of U. P. in Home (Police) Anubhag-1, has issued a Government Order dated 3.2.1994. Annexure-1 to the writ petition for out of turn promotion in case a Police Officer/official shows indomitable courage and valour, commitment and dedication to duty during the course of his employment. The petitioners. Satya Pal Singh and Natthu Singh who are Police Constables and Devendra Kumar and Sudesh Gupta who are Sub-Inspectors in Civil Police are claiming out of turn promotion in the following circumstances.

2. There was a dreaded and notorious criminal Amar Pal, who had let loose a reign of terror in the district of Ghaziabad in particular, and the surrounding areas in general. A special party, comprising Station Officer. Sharad Pratap Singh, Constable Gyanendra Kumar and Constable Ashok Kumar, respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 was constituted to apprehend the said desperado with a view to contain his criminal activities. On getting a tip from an informer that Amar Pal is likely to be available at the house of one Dr. Subodh Chaudhary in the local limits of P. S. Muradnagar. district Ghaziabad, a party under the leadership of Sharad Pratap Singh, Station Officer, consisting four petitioners and respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as well as Rajesh Kumar. Constable organised the raid. The said party was successful in annihilating Amar Pal in an encounter which had taken place on 12.5.1997. Illicit arms and ammunitions were also seized. A Magisterial enquiry was conducted into the said episode. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, sent a citation dated 11.12.1997, Annexure-5 to the writ petition in which the names of all the members of the raiding party, including the petitioners were recommended for out of turn promotion. The recommendation was considered by the Dy. Inspector General of Police who referred back the matter to the S.S.P., Ghaziabad with the query whether it would be appropriate to grant out of turn promotion to as many as 8 persons who were involved in one single incident of extermination of a criminal. The letter of the D.I.G, dated 19.12.1997 is Annexure-6. The S.S.P.. Ghaziabad. in his turn, referred the matter to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Rural Area for submission of his report. The report of the Circle Officer. Modinagar dated 11.11.1997 was obtained, a copy of which is Annexure-R.A. 2 to the rejoinder-affidavit. On the basis of the report of Circle Officer, Modinagar, the Additional S.P, [Rural Area) submitted his report on 19.11.1997. copy whereof is Annexure-R.A. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit. S.S.P., Ghaziabad. sent a revised citation on 24.12.1997, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, recommending the names of Sharad Pratap Singh, Station Officer, Gyanendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar, Constables respondent Nos. 6. 7 and 8 for out of turn promotion. He dropped the names of the petitioners for out of turn promotion. Ultimately, the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were granted out of turn promotion after the approval of Director General of Police, dated 18.7.1998, Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

3. The petitioners have alleged that the revised citation submitted by the S.S.P., Ghaziabad, ignoring the names of the petitioners was arbitrary and that he had adopted an attitude of pick and choose from amongst the members, who were associated with the raiding party, which was deputed to apprehend the notorious criminal Amar Pal. It is stated that the various acts and participation of the petitioners in the episode cannot be distinguished on any ground with that of respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 as the indomitable courage and valour, commitment and dedication to duty as well as bravery exhibited by the petitioners could not, in any manner, be under estimated. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that the order dated 18.7.1998 passed by the Director General of Police. granting out of turn promotion to respondent Nos. 6. 7 and 8 be quashed, and the respondents be commanded to grant out of turn promotion and to confer all benefits and privileges on the petitioners from the date the aforesaid respondents were promoted.

4. Two counter-affidavits have been filed in the case--one on behalf of the department--respondent Nos. 1 to 5. and the other on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8. The pleas taken in both the counter-affidavits are almost similar. It is alleged that out of turn promotion has been granted to the persons whose role was found better in the encounter ; that the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have been given out of turn promotion for their display of indomitable courage and valour, commitment and dedication to duty in the incident/encounter. Amar Pal was gunned down by the fire shot by respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8. It is alleged that It is not necessary that all the members, who have participated in the encounter, should be given out of turn promotion and that the petitioners though were not granted out of turn promotion, have received certificates of appreciation and the cash award. The plea that the S.S.P., Ghaziabad has resorted to pick and choose method in sending the revised citation has been refuted. It is stated that it is wrong to suggest that the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have been granted promotion in an arbitrary. Irrational and artificial manner by adopting the practice of pick and choose. In reply to the counter-affidavits, a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners.

5. Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel at considerable length.

6. It is an indubitable fact that the petitioners were the members of the party which was organised to combat and contain the criminal activities of Amar Pal and to apprehend, the notorious and wanted criminal who had confined himself in the house of Dr. Subodh Chaudhary. The stand taken by the petitioners, in nutshell, is that since an identical role was assigned and played by each one of the members of the raiding party, the petitioners should have been allowed promotion, out of turn, like the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8. as they could not be discriminated in the mater. It was also urged that the preferential treatment, which has been given to the respondent Nos. 6. 7 and 8 was the result of hostile discriminatory and partisan attitude adopted by the departmental authorities. Sri Yogesh Agarwal further urged that there have been instances in which a large number of persons, involved in a particular encounter, have been granted out of turn promotion in the Police Department. The instances of such promotions have been given in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. Copies of the orders of such Policemen, who were promoted in the other episodes are Annexures-14 and 15 to the writ petition. In one case of encounter of one Ambrish, seven Policemen were given out of turn promotion while in another case of encounter of Illam Singh, eight Policemen were granted the said benefit. On the strength of these precedents, Sri Yogesh Agarwal contended that the Dy. Inspector General of Police of the range was not justified in making a query to the effect that whether it would be proper to grant promotion to all the 8 members of the raiding party in a single encounter and consequently, the revised citation submitted by the S.S.P., Ghaziabad, was bad in law as it was afflicted by the vice of arbitrariness. Sri Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners further strenuously urged that since the departmental authorities have denied out of turn promotion to the petitioners in an arbitrary and capricious manner, by resorting to pick and choose practice, this Court can straightaway direct the promotion of the petitioners, cut of turn, from the date the respondent Nos. 6. 7 and 8 were promoted. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, gave up the prayer during the course of arguments, that the out of turn promotion of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 be quashed as according to him, the petitioners are not going to get any relief by quashing of promotion of those respondents. He, therefore, confined his prayer only to the extent that the petitioners be ordered to be promoted out of turn on the same ground, on which the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have been promoted.

7. !n support of his contention that this Court can straightaway pass an order for promotion of the petitioners, out of turn, reliance was placed by Sri Yogesh Agarwal on the decisions of the Apex Court in Vijay Kumar, I.A.S. v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1988 SC 2060 ; Smt. Kamla Gaind v. State of Punjab and others. 1990 SCSR 282 ; M/s. Prick India Ltd. and another v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1994 SC 2410 ; State of Maharashtra u. Manubhai Pragajt Vashi and others AIR 1996 SC 1, as well as decision of this Court in Sushil Chandra Srivastava v. State of U. P. and others, (1996) 1 ESC 396. I have thoroughly studied and scrutinised the various observations made in the decisions, aforesaid. The gamut of these rulings, in short, is that when a governmental action is under challenge on the ground of arbitrariness, unfairness or unreasonableness, it is the duty of the Government to place reasons before the Court for passing such orders and when, prima facie, a plea of discrimination is made out, the burden to prove is on the State to show that it is not so or that a valid and permissible classification exists for differential treatment meted out to Government servants. There should be nexus between basis of classification and the object to be achieved.

8. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The core question for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled, as of right, to out of turn promotion on the basis of their participation with other A.W.C. 207 members of the raiding parly in the encounter, which culminated in the annihilation of the notorious criminal, Amar Pal. In my view, mere participation of the petitioners in the encounter would not furnish an indefeasible right to claim promotion out of turn. It is true that the petitioners did take part in the encounter as they were actively associated with the raiding party ; nevertheless, it is the subjective satisfaction of the departmental authorities to determine whether a particular employee who has been the member of the raiding party is entitled to out of turn promotion or not. Such satisfaction is to be arrived at with reference to the role assigned to the various members of the raiding party and the valour and courage exhibited by them and their situation and location at the crucial time. Some members are in the proximity and in the range of firing, while some are at considerable distance from other members to keep vigil and their participation may not be as dangerous and hazardous as it was in respect of the members who were in the closest possible proximity of the desperado who was sought to be apprehended. To quote an example, in a war. hundreds of soldiers, with their Commanding Officer and other officers take cudgels with the enemy and move together. They are all contributing their mite to challenge the enemy side. The participation of each one of the soldiers and officers is alike. If gallantry award is given to the head, who was in the command or to those soldiers who were in proximity, other members cannot, as a matter of right, claim that they should also be treated in the same manner. There has, of necessity, to be a distinction in the selection of the awardees. The award would lose its importance and significance if it is given to every one of the members in the normal course. In the instant case, it has come on record that the notorious criminal died on account of the fires shot by respondent Nos. 6 to 8 who, it appears were in the closest possible proximity of Amar Pal. Originally, the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were charged of the duty to apprehend Amar Pal dead or alive. The petitioners were detailed to join the party by way of re-enforcement. It is not that the distinctive services rendered by the petitioner have gone unnoticed and unrecognised. They have been Issued certificate of appreciation by the departmental authorities and have also been paid cash award. The two petitioners who are Sub-Inspectors, have been paid Rs. 4.000 each while the other two Constable-petitioners were paid Rs. 2.250 each. This should have been an endearing solace to the petitioners as their services have been duly recognised and appreciated by the departmental authorities.

Satya Pal Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others

Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion (Excerpt)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Respondents' / Department's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Satya Pal Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others

Comments