Awadh Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010251362023

2026:CGHC:29497

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 5605 of 2023

¶7

Awadh Ram Sahu S/o Shri Ajoo Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years Occupation Inspector Raipur Traffic Management P.S. Kayabandha, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

--- Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, P.S. Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Raipur Near Mantralaya, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Viasha/naxalite Movement) Police Headquarter, Chhattisgarh Sector- 19, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Superintendent Of Police District Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

	---Respondents
For Petitioner	: Ms. Deepali Pandey, Adv.
For Respondents/	: Mr. Ujjwal Choubey and Mr. Mayoor Khandelwal, PL
State

¶15

Mr. Nandini Thakur, ACP (HQ), is also present in person.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶17

13-7-2026

¶18

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

¶19

“10.1That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 27/12/2022 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of police rejecting the applications of the petitioner claiming out

¶20

2

¶21

of turn promotion for outstanding performance in Naxalite area and the Prize amount and recommendation for PPMG performance in Naxalite areas.

¶22

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent state authority no.3 to grant the petitioner out of turn Promotion for outstanding performance in Naxalite area.

¶23

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent state authority to grant the petitioner, the Prize amount and recommendation for PPMG award for outstanding performance in Naxalite areas.

¶24

10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.

¶25

The facts of the case, in brief, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was posted as a Sub-Inspector in the Naxalite-affected areas of Bastar and Kondagaon from 2012 to 2016. During his posting, on 17-08-2014, the petitioner, along with Sub-Inspector Rupesh Kuntal Ekka, Sub-Inspector Ravi Shankar Tiwari, Head Constable Shankarlal Sahu (S.I.B., Jagdalpur), Constable Singalu Korram and Constable Aasman Korram (S.I.B., Kondagaon), conducted a successful operation which resulted in the surrender of Usaru @ Sampat @ Sutte @ Guddu, Commander of Maoist Military Company No. 6, and his wife Aasmati, a member of the same company, at Village Mohanbeda, Police Station Makdi, District Kondagaon. The relevant Rojnamcha Sanha has been filed as Annexure P-2.

¶26

3

¶27

2.1 Aforesaid operation was carried out under the leadership of the petitioner. The success of the operation was also reported in newspapers (Annexure P-3). The then Additional Director General of Police (Naxalite Operations) announced out-of-turn promotion for the police team. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon, vide memorandum dated 19-08-2014, recommended the petitioner's name, along with other members of the team, for out-of-turn promotion. According to the petitioner, under the prevailing Government policy, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was prescribed for the surrender of a Military Company Commander, Rs.8,00,000/- for a DVC Member and Rs.5,00,000/- for the arrest or death of an LOS Commander. Despite repeated oral assurances from the superior authorities, neither was the petitioner granted out-of-turn promotion nor was he awarded the prize money. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the successful surrender of the aforesaid two hardcore Naxalites has been duly recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha (Annexure P-2). The petitioner and the other members of the police team conducted the operation during the night and under heavy rainfall, exposing themselves to grave risk. She further submits that, for the very same operation, the Director General of Police, vide order dated 10-07-2015 (page 98 of the writ petition), granted out-of-turn promotion to Head Constable Shankarlal Sahu, Constable Singaluram Korram and Constable Aasman Korram. She submits that the Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon had earlier recommended the petitioner's name for out-of-turn promotion vide Annexure P-4 dated 19-08-2014 and vide recommendation dated 5-6-

¶29

4

¶30

2015 for prize money. Thereafter, vide memorandum dated 26-102015, it again recommended the petitioner's case for out-of-turn promotion. Despite these recommendations, the Committee of higher officials of the police department (hereinafter referred to as ‘Committee’), in its meeting held on 12-08-2016 (page 135 of the writ petition), closed the petitioner's case as well as that of Sub-Inspector Ravi Shankar Tiwari. It is contended that when subordinate members of the same police team were granted out-of-turn promotion, the petitioner, who had led the operation, ought also to have been granted the same benefit in terms of Regulation 70-A of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed.

¶31

The State has filed its reply. Referring thereto, learned State counsel submits that although the Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon had initially recommended the petitioner's name for out-of-turn promotion vide Annexure P-4 dated 19-08-2014, in the subsequent recommendation dated 05-06-2015, the same authority did not recommend the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion. Instead, the petitioner and Sub-Inspector Rupesh Kuntal Ekka were recommended only for grant of prize money. He further submits that the higher authorities called for separate reports regarding the specific role played by each member of the police team. In compliance thereof, the Superintendent of Police again submitted a report dated 26-10-2015 (page 101 of the writ petition) recommending the petitioner's name for out-of-turn promotion. The said recommendation was duly considered by the Committee, which, after due deliberation, declined to grant outof-turn promotion to the petitioner and consequently closed his case. It

¶32

5

¶33

is thus submitted that the petitioner's claim has already been considered by the competent authority, which found him unsuitable for out-of-turn promotion. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

It is undisputed that the petitioner, along with Sub-Inspector Rupesh Kuntal Ekka, Sub-Inspector Ravi Shankar Tiwari, Head Constable Shankarlal Sahu, Constable Singalu Korram and Constable Aasman Korram, participated in the anti-Naxalite operation conducted on 17-082014, which culminated in the surrender of Usaru @ Sampat @ Sutte @ Guddu, Commander of Maoist Military Company No. 6, and his wife Aasmati, a member of the same organisation. A perusal of the recommendation dated 19-08-2014 (Annexure P-4) submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon to the Additional Director General of Police (Naxalite Operations), Police Headquarters, Raipur, as well as the subsequent recommendation dated 05-06-2015, reveals that the two recommendations are mutually inconsistent. While the first recommendation specifically recommended the petitioner for out-ofturn promotion, the second recommendation dated 5-6-2-15 omitted such recommendation and instead proposed only the grant of prize money. Subsequently, vide communication dated 26-10-2015 (page 101 of the writ petition), the Superintendent of Police once again recommended the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion. These contradictory recommendations create uncertainty regarding the assessment of the petitioner's role and raise a serious question as to

¶36

6

¶37

whether the competent authorities objectively evaluated his contribution to the operation.

¶38

It is imperative here to examine the statutory framework and legislative intent of Regulation 70-A of the CG Police Regulations, which reads thus :-

¶39

“ 70-A.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 70, a Constable may be promoted to the rank of Head Constable by the Superintendent of Police with the prior approval of the Directors General of Police and a Head Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector by the Deputy Inspector General of Police with the prior approval of the Director General of Police if he has distinguished himself in anti-dacoit operations, law and order situations or shooting competitions or in some other field of duty or who has been awarded the President's Police Medal for Gallantry or for meritorious/distinguished services, if he considers him suitable for promotion. Similarly, the Inspector General of Police may promote an Assistant Sub-Inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector and a SubInspector to the rank of an Inspector on similar grounds if found suitable for promotion and subject to the prior approval of the Director General of Police. The number of officers promoted under this regulation shall not exceed 10 per cent.”

¶40

Regulation 70-A carves out a special exception to the normal rules governing promotions. The underlying object of the Regulation is to recognise, reward and encourage acts of exceptional bravery, outstanding professional competence and extraordinary devotion to duty. The Regulation contemplates an objective and fair assessment of the officer's conduct. The Screening Committee is, therefore, expected to examine whether the officer merely discharged his routine official duties or performed an act displaying exceptional courage, initiative or professional excellence warranting out-of-turn promotion.

¶41

7

¶42

Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the legislative intent underlying Regulation 70-A, this Court finds that the Committee failed to adequately consider the earlier recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon. In the recommendation dated 19-08-2014 (Annexure P-4), respondent No. 4/the Superintendent of Police narrated the entire incident in detail and specifically recommended the petitioner's name for out-of-turn promotion. However, in the subsequent recommendation dated 05-06-2015, despite referring to the same incident, he recommended only the grant of prize money. Thereafter, by another recommendation dated 26-102015, the Superintendent of Police once again recommended the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion after elaborately describing the role played by him in the operation.

¶43

However, the Committee rejected the petitioner's claim without objectively examining the material placed before it. The relevant portion of the Committee's proceedings reads as follows:-

¶44

" प ्र करण कमांक 16. जि�ला कोण्डागांव में दि�नांक 17.08.2014 को संपत उर्फ� सुट्टे सादिकन प�ेली, दिमलिलट्री कंपनी नं. 06 का कमाण्डर तथा आसमतित, कुआनार एरिरया कमेटी स�स्य को ग्राम में घेराबं�ी कर आत्मसमप�ण कराया गया । उक्त प्रकरण में पुलिलस अधीक्षक कोण्डागांव द्वारा पुनः उप दिनरीक्षक अवध राम साहू की अनुशंसा की गई है तथा उप दिनरीक्षक रदिवशंकर तितवारी द्वारा कम-से-पूव� प�ोन्नतित हेतु अभ्यावे�न प्रस्तुत की गई है। सदिमतित पर �ोनों नामों में दिवचारण उपरांत प्रकरण नस्तीबद्ध की �ाती है।"

¶45

8

¶46

The recommendation dated 26-10-2015 elaborately records the role played by the petitioner in the operation. It also details the role of the other members of the police team. It is not in dispute that three members of the same team were granted out-of-turn promotion, whereas the petitioner was denied the said benefit.

¶47

The petitioner's courageous role appears to have been treated as nothing more than the discharge of his routine duties. The Committee ought to have objectively considered all the three recommendations before arriving at its decision. A perusal of the Committee's resolution reveals that it has neither discussed the contradictory recommendations nor assigned any reasons for closing the petitioner's claim. The decision, therefore, reflects a clear non-application of mind.

¶48

It is well settled that out-of-turn promotion is not a matter of right. Nevertheless, while considering such a claim, the competent authority is expected to keep in view the purpose and spirit of Regulation 70-A of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, which is intended to recognise and reward acts of exceptional courage and distinguished service.

¶49

This Court is fully conscious of the settled legal proposition that the power of judicial review over administrative decisions particularly those involving the subjective satisfaction of a screening committee is inherently limited. A writ court does not sit as an appellate authority over the administrative body to substitute its own views. However, this limited scope does not mean that the administrative action is entirely immune from judicial scrutiny. In this context, reference to judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Aftab Mir v. State of J&K , (2011) 11

¶50

9

¶51

SCC 82 is important where it has been held as under:

¶52

“ 8. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that he was duly covered by Circular No. 14-GR of 1990 dated 6-3-1990 and his claim to out-of-turn promotion was duly supported by the recommendations by the officers who were present when the Charar-e-Sharif incidents took place. It was submitted that the task performed by the appellant at Chadoora was no less significant than the task performed by the police personnel in Charar-e-Sharif itself and there was, therefore, no reason to discriminate between the appellant and the Station House Officer of Charar-e-Sharif, particularly when both had been recommended for out-of-turn promotion by the Superintendent of Police (Operations) and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam District, Kashmir.

¶53

9. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent State that the case of the appellant for out-of-turn promotion had been duly considered by the authorities at the highest levels and a decision was taken, considering the situation at the ground level on 10-5-1995 and 11-5-1995 when Charar-e-Sharif Town was gutted. It was contended that the situation in Charar-e-Sharif Town itself and in Chadoora were different, in that, within Charar-e-Sharif Town the police were engaged with the militants directly as they had moved into the shrine itself, whereas in Chadoora the duty performed on the said two days was one of containment. Regarding the incident at Badipora, the same was also aimed against communal forces who were trying to burn down the temple, but the same also involved containment and not a direct and active confrontation with the militants. It was submitted that in the different circumstances, involving the SHO of Charar-e-Sharif and the appellant, it could not be said that the appellant had been discriminated against in the matter of out-of-turn promotion.

¶54

10

¶55

10. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the materials on record, as also the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it does appear that the circumstances prevailing within the town of Charar-e-Sharif and in Chadoora were different during the disturbance and the decision to grant out-of-turn promotion to Sheikh Hamidulla, who was the Station House Officer, Charar-eSharif, during those fateful days was fully justified.

¶56

11. In the absence of any glaring discrepancy or bias in the decisionmaking process, ordinarily the Court does not normally take upon itself the task of making a subjective assessment of an officer's performance in relation to matters of promotion and that too of the nature contemplated in the present case. However, at the same time, the Court is also entitled to consider the materials placed before it in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether an injustice has been caused to the officer concerned. In the present case, both the Superintendent and Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam District, had a chance to observe the appellant's performance on the ground on 10-51995 and 11-5-1995, when the incident was actually taking place and they have recommended that the appellant should be given out-of-turn promotion. The Director General of Police has also recognised the exemplary performance of the appellant. All such recommendations seemed to suggest that the performance of the appellant merited special consideration. Of course, the appellant has already been promoted to the post of Inspector on 19-8-2000, and the only question which now survives is whether such promotion should be given retrospective effect from the date on which Sheikh Hamidulla and Sub-Inspector Sonaullah were given such promotion.

¶57

19. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the case of the appellant be reconsidered by the respondents concerned in accordance with Circular No. 14-GR

¶58

11

¶59

of 1990 dated 6-3-1990, for the purpose of granting retrospective effect to the promotion already granted to him on 19-8-2000, and if such retrospective effect is given, to consider such other benefits that he may, thereafter, become entitled to in accordance with law. The said exercise should be completed within three months from the date of communication of this order.”

¶60

In para 11 of the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court categorically held that while the Court avoids subjective assessments in the absence of glaring bias, it is concurrently entitled to consider the materials placed before it in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether an injustice has been caused to the officer concerned . The Supreme Court in Mohd. Aftab Mir (supra) found merit in judicial interference specifically because the field officers who had the chance to observe the performance on the ground had strongly recommended the out-of-turn promotion yet the higher authority bypassed it by merely granting a cash reward. Even if the factual matrix of the present case is taken, here too, the Superintendent of Police recommended petitioner’s name for out-of-turn promotion twice and once for prize money, but the Committee closed the case of the petitioner. It creates the exact type of glaring discrepancy and resultant injustice that the Supreme Court observed and reached to a conclusion that judicial interference is required.

¶61

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the Committee closing the petitioner's claim for out-of-turn promotion/prize money cannot be sustained. The Committee has failed to consider the material recommendations made

¶62

12

¶63

by the Superintendent of Police from time to time, particularly the recommendation dated 26-10-2015, wherein the specific and active role played by the petitioner in the operation was elaborately recorded. The impugned decision reflects no consideration of the petitioner's individual role or the reasons for treating his case differently from those of other members of the same police party who were granted out-ofturn promotion. The decision, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and cannot withstand in judicial scrutiny.

¶64

Accordingly, the decision of the Committee dated 12-8-2016 (Annexure R-2) insofar as it relates to the petitioner's claim for out-ofturn promotion and memo (annexure P-1) dated 27-12-2022, are hereby set aside . The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's case afresh in accordance with Regulation 70-A of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, keeping in view the object and spirit of the said Regulation, the recommendations dated 19-08-2014, 5-6-20 15 and 26-10-2015, and all other relevant materials available on record, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶65

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶66

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶69

pathak

¶70

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.07.17 11:16:56 +0530

Awadh Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadh Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Manisha Mirche Vs Vijay Kumar Mirche

Narayan Prasad Pandey Vs Dr. K. v. Rao

Shivram Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Agrawal

Manohar Lal Tiwari Vs Ramesh Khandey

Smt. Kajal Chandrakar Vs Sagar Ram Chandrakar