Bravery Must Be Proven For Out-of-Turn Promotion, Not Claimed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Constable’s Plea

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that out-of-turn promotion in the police force cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be backed by clear evidence of extraordinary bravery, dismissing a long-pending writ petition filed by a constable who alleged discrimination in denial of such benefit.In doing so, the Court underscored that mere participation in an operation, without demonstrable acts of gallantry, is insufficient to secure accelerated promotion under service regulations.

The case arose from a 2017 writ petition filed by Shaligram Dubey, a Driver/Constable in the Special Armed Force, who claimed that he had been part of a police team that recovered a large cache of dynamite looted by Naxalites in 2002.

Represented by Advocate H.K. Upadhyay, the petitioner argued that despite being similarly placed as others who received out-of-turn promotion, his claim had been arbitrarily rejected by the authorities.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Hitendra Singh, contested this claim, asserting that the petitioner neither demonstrated any extraordinary act nor was conclusively shown to be part of the core team eligible for such promotion.

Justice Maninder S. Bhatti, writing for the Court, examined the factual matrix and the competing claims in detail. The petitioner had relied heavily on an affidavit filed by the then Additional Superintendent of Police, who acknowledged that Dubey was part of his team during the operation.

However, the Court found that this acknowledgment alone did not establish entitlement to out-of-turn promotion. Crucially, the affidavit did not attribute any specific act of bravery or exceptional conduct to the petitioner.

The Court noted that the record revealed a structured evaluation of personnel involved in the operation. Out of around eighty police personnel, only a limited number were granted out-of-turn promotions based on acts deemed extraordinary, while others received lesser rewards or none at all. This, the Court held, demonstrated that the benefit was selectively conferred based on merit rather than uniformly extended to all participants.

Rejecting the plea of discrimination, the Court relied on settled legal principles and precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sanjay Shukla. It quoted the Supreme Court to reiterate that “there cannot be any parity so far as claiming out-of-turn promotion is concerned,” emphasizing that such claims depend on individual acts and cannot be equated across officers.

Importantly, the Court also highlighted the lack of documentary evidence supporting the petitioner’s presence at the scene. It observed that apart from a solitary statement in an affidavit, there was no contemporaneous record, such as entries in official registers, to substantiate his participation in the operation. This evidentiary gap further weakened the petitioner’s case.

Addressing the core requirement for out-of-turn promotion, the Court held that “an extraordinary act of bravery is required to be demonstrated,” and that such a standard must be strictly applied in disciplined forces like the police. The petitioner’s claims, the Court found, were largely self-serving and unsupported by independent material or corroboration from the record.

The judgment also clarified that Regulation 70-A of the Police Regulations, which governs out-of-turn promotions, does not create an enforceable right. Instead, it vests discretion in the authorities to assess and reward exceptional conduct. As such, the Court observed that claims based on parity or comparison with others are inherently untenable in this context.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that no error had been committed by the authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s representation. In the absence of proof of extraordinary bravery or even definitive evidence of participation, the writ petition was found to be devoid of merit.

“Accordingly, the respondents have not committed any error in rejecting the representation of the petitioner,” the Court held, dismissing the petition without costs.

Case Title: Shaligram Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Maninder S. Bhatti