STATE OF MP Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal has been filed by the State under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 27-2-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 579/2004 (S ).

(2.) THE only grievance of the appellants/state is that the learned Single judge has committed illegality in giving a direction to grant of out of turn promotion to the respondent w. e. f. 27-5-2003. The learned Single Judge, instead, ought to have directed the Screening Committee to reconsider the case of the respondent for promotion. .

(3.) THERE is no dispute about the facts of the case that on 1-12-2002 the respondent took active part in the Anti-Dacoity Operation with a gang headed by hanni @ Hanif Musalman as in-charge of the Police Station Jigana District Datia and thereafter there was an encounter with the gang and the respondent took active part in the encounter with the gang leader Hanni @ Hanif Musalman in which he was killed. It was further the case that under the Regulation 70-A of the m. P. Police Regulations of the Police Manual on taking active part in the distinguished Anti-Dacoity Operation, any officer is entitled for President's police Medal for gallantry or he can be considered for promotion. Since the case of the respondent was strongly recommended by the departmental officer but was not considered and was turned down for grant of out of turn promotion by screening Committee, though without assigning any reason, therefore, the submission of Shri Brijesh Sharma is that the State has filed this appeal on this legal point of principle that the writ Court should only direct for consideration of the case by the Government and should not give direction that he be treated as promoted out of turn with effect from 27-5-2003 and in support of his submission, learned Government Advocate placed reliance on a decision in the case of Management of Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1966 SC 668, in which it was held that :