PANKAJ DIXIT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by Shri Piyush Mathur, senior Advocate with Shri M.S. Dwivedi, Advocate.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector since 14-7-1990. It is submitted that out of turn promotion was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 11-1-1998 vide order Annexure P/4 for executing exemplary duties on 11-1-1998, Learned counsel for petitioner submits that case of the petitioner was recommended for out of turn promotion by the Supdt. of Police vide order dated 28-10-1998, which was confirmed by the DIG vide order dated 10-7-1998 and also by IG vide order dated 28-1-1998. It is submitted that in spite of recommendations the State Government took three years to pass the order and lastly the order was passed on 11-8-1998. It is submitted that order ought to have been w.e.f. 11-1-1998. It is submitted that in the similar circumstances the order was passed in the matter of Anurag Pandey in W.P. No. 306/2004 decided on 5-1-2010 and the out of turn promotion was given to Anil and Anurag from the date of incident. It is submitted that necessary directions be issued.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents submits that reply has been filed. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order. As per Regulation 70-A of Police Regulation promotion can be given out of turn but it is nowhere stated that promotion ought to have been given from the date of incident. It is submitted that it is just matter of chance that out of turn promotion was given to Anil and Anurag from the date of incident, which cannot be claimed as precedent. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.