The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that not every act of bravery entitles a police constable to out-of-turn promotion under Rule 56(3) of MP Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam [Special Armed Force Act] and that the act must be interpreted in the context of police duties and functions. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 459]
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed that the provision cannot be interpreted so broadly as to cover every humanitarian act performed by police personnel irrespective of its connection with official duties.
"The crucial question is whether the incident falls within the categories contemplated by Rule 56(3). The Rule does not provide for out-of-turn promotion merely on account of any act of bravery performed by a police personnel in his personal capacity. The relevant expression is that the officer must have distinguished himself in anti-dacoity operations, law and order situations, shooting competitions or “in some other field of duty”. The words “some other field of duty” have to be read in the context of the preceding expressions and the object of the provision. They contemplate distinguished performance in a field connected with the duties and functions of the police force. The expression cannot be interpreted so broadly as to include every meritorious or humanitarian act performed by a police personnel, irrespective of its connection with his official duties".
The concerned police constable rescued two neighbours after their clothes caught fire. He extinguished the fire and arranged their medical treatment. Recognising his bravery, the department awarded him a cash reward of ₹1,000/.
However, the competent committee had found him unsuitable for out-of-turn promotion. Upon reconsideration, the competent authority, through an order dated December 14, 2020, held that the incident did not fall within the ambit of Rule 56(3).
The constable challenged the decision, following which the Single Judge allowed his petition and noted that his act of bravery was undisputed. The Single Judge noted that other similarly situated police personnel had allegdly recevied out of turn promotion for acts considered less significant.
Accordingly, the Single Judge had directed that the constable be promoted to the post of Head Constable retrospectively with effect from May 8, 2000, without back wages for the intervening period, with consequential pensionary benefits.
The State challenged this decision before the Division Bench, contending that Rule 56(3) confers discretionary power upon the competent authority and does not create an enforceable right. It was pointed out that the incident occurred after 8:30 pm, when the constable was off duty and was not connected with the discharge of official duties.
The court noted that Rule 56(3) empowers the Deputy Inspector General of Police to grant out-of-turn promotions to a constable who has distinguished himself in "anti-dacoity operations, law and order situations, shooting competitions or in some other field of duty, or has been awarded the specified police medals for gallantry, distinguished service or meritorious service, and is considered suitable for promotion".
The court emphasised,
"The expression “may promote” employed in Rule 56(3) clearly indicates that the provision confers a discretionary power upon the competent authority and does not create an indefeasible or enforceable right in favour of every police personnel who performs an act of bravery or renders assistance to a person in distress. The grant of out-of-turn promotion is, therefore, not an automatic consequence of an act of courage or public service. The claim must satisfy the requirements of the Rule, and the competent authority must also be satisfied as to the suitability of the concerned police personnel for such promotion".
In the present case, the court noted that the constable undoubtedly showed courage and humanity, but the commendable act of bravery and receiving cash rewards does not by itself establish his entitlement to out-of-turn promotion under Rule 56(3).
In the present case, the bench noted that the incident did not arise out of any anti-dacoity operation, law and order situation or other official assignment entrusted to him. This, even though the respondent's conduct was commendable, does not satisfy the statutory requirement for consideration of out-of-turn promotion.
The bench highlighted, "The mere fact that the respondent had been awarded a cash reward does not render the said decision arbitrary or perverse. Recognition of an act of bravery by way of a cash reward and eligibility for out-of-turn promotion are two distinct matters governed by different considerations. The former cannot, by itself, confer a right to the latter".
Referring to the Supreme Court case of State of MP v Sanjay Shukla, the bench reiterated that promotions cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it is discretionary upon the competent authority to decide after considering relevant facts and circumstances.
Referring to the Single Judge order, the bench noted that the approach adopted by the Single Judge was not in consonance with the statutory scheme of Rule 56(3). Further, comparing the present case with other cases of police personnel could not by itself furnish a legal basis for directing the respondent's promotion. Each claim needs to be examined per the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
For State: Government Advocate Piyush Jain
For Respondent: Advocate Nand Kishore Tiwari