SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that action of the respondents granting special promotion in exercise of power u/R.28 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 to other incumbents form Constable to Head Constable vide Annex.12 is discriminatory and the discretion available u/R.28 has been blindly exercised by the authority while granting special promotion under the order impugned.

(2.) The petitioner at present is substantively holding the post of Constable and he has tried to convince this Court that on the basis of documentary evidence which he has placed on record he deserves special promotion u/R.28 of the Rules, 1989. It has been pleaded by him in para 9 of the writ petition that if the service record is looked into of those to whom special promotion has been granted by the authority they are less meritorious in comparison to the petitioner, in view thereof the decision taken by the respondents is discriminatory and in violation of Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and in absence of record of individual being disclosed the power which has been exercised by the authority while granting special promotion in exercise of power u/R.28 of the Rules, 1989 is nothing but abuse by the authority with whom it is vested and requires interference by this Court.

(3.) From the bare perusal of R.28 of the Rules,1989 it provides special nomination for promotion cadre course, in fact it is out of turn promotion but one is nominated for promotion cadre course to next higher rank and the power is vested with the Director cum Inspector General of Police to make special nomination of the incumbent in cases where they have shown outstanding working in anti- dacoity, anti-smuggling or in any special field of police work including performance in games and have put in not less than twenty years of service exclusively as member of the service and has extraordinary service record of outstanding work for grant of special nomination in exercise of power u/R.28 of the Rules. Merely because petitioner's case was recommended by the Station House Officer where he was posted that cannot be considered to be a ground as such to seek special nomination and apart from it, the petitioner has tried to make averment in the writ petition regarding discrimination but no material in support thereof has been placed on record by him which could at all justify that power u/R.28 of the Rules was either arbitrarily exercised or the discretion is abused and in absence of any material on record and pleaded by the petitioner, there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere in the process of selection adopted by the respondent while granting special nomination in exercise of power u/R.28 of the Rules,1989.