Heroism Alone Does Not Earn Out-of-Turn Promotion for Police Personnel, Says MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a police constable who rescued two burning neighbours cannot claim out-of-turn promotion as a matter of right, holding that an act of bravery, however commendable, does not automatically bring a case within Rule 56(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal allowed the State’s writ appeal and set aside a Single Judge order that had granted the constable promotion to Head Constable with effect from 08.05.2000. The Court observed that the incident “undoubtedly reflects an act of courage and humanity”, but said that this alone does not create a legal entitlement to promotion.

The respondent, Santosh Dubey, had rescued his neighbours, Nalini Bai and Francis Joseph, after their clothes caught fire. He extinguished the flames and arranged for their treatment. The Department recognised his conduct with a cash reward of Rs 1,000. However, the competent committee found him unsuitable for out-of-turn promotion, and he kept pursuing the claim for over two decades.

On 07.09.2020, the High Court observed that injustice had been caused to him and directed the State to reconsider his claim on a fresh representation. By order dated 14.12.2020, the authority again held that the incident did not fall within Rule 56(3).

The Single Judge, in W.P. No. 24814/2003, noted that the bravery was undisputed and that other police personnel had received out-of-turn promotion for acts considered less significant. Promotion was directed from 08.05.2000, without back wages but with consequential pensionary benefits.

Appearing for the State, Government Advocate Piyush Jain argued that Rule 56(3) is an enabling provision that creates no enforceable right. He submitted that the incident took place after 8:30 p.m., when the respondent was off duty. Advocate Nand Kishore Tiwari appeared for the respondent.

Why the bench said no

The Division Bench began with the wording of the Rule. It said the expression “may promote” “clearly indicates that the provision confers a discretionary power upon the competent authority”. The grant of such promotion, it added, is therefore “not an automatic consequence of an act of courage or public service”.

The Rule covers officers who have distinguished themselves in anti-dacoity operations, law and order situations, shooting competitions or “in some other field of duty”, or who have received specified police medals. These words, the Court held, must be read in the context of the preceding expressions.

They contemplate “distinguished performance in a field connected with the duties and functions of the police force”, and cannot extend to “every meritorious or humanitarian act performed by a police personnel, irrespective of its connection with his official duties”.

Here, the incident occurred when the respondent was off duty and did not arise from any official assignment. Nothing showed that he had received any medal named in the Rule. The Rs 1,000 reward could not be equated with such medals, the Court said, adding that recognition of bravery and eligibility for promotion “are two distinct matters governed by different considerations”.

The bench relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Shukla, which held that out-of-turn promotion cannot be claimed as of right and that courts may interfere only where the decision is palpably arbitrary or perverse. The High Court held that the same principle applies to Rule 56(3).

It also rejected the parity argument. An order granting promotion in another case, “even if considered erroneous”, cannot create a right in the respondent’s favour, the bench said.

Acknowledging that the respondent’s conduct “deserves appreciation”, the Court stressed that judicial review concerns the legality of the authority’s decision, not its own assessment of how brave an employee was. The Single Judge, it held, had exceeded those limits, and the retrospective promotion was also unsustainable.

The writ appeal was allowed, the Single Judge’s order set aside and the 14.12.2020 rejection upheld, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Santosh Dubey

Order Date: October 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal