The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that gallantry promotion under Rule 28(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, is a discretionary privilege, not an enforceable right - even when superior officers recommend it. The judgment underscores that delay in seeking judicial remedy can extinguish the entitlement to extraordinary relief under Article 226, reinforcing administrative finality in service matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a Constable in the Rajasthan Police, was part of a team that successfully rescued a kidnapped individual during a high-risk operation in 2012. Following the operation, both the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, and the Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, recommended the petitioner and his colleague for out-of-turn promotion to Head Constable under Rule 28(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989.
Procedural History
- October 2012: Recommendations for gallantry promotion submitted by local police authorities.
- October 2013: Director General of Police, Rajasthan, denied promotion and awarded only a cash prize of Rs. 5,000 and a commendation certificate.
- 2017: Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Jodhpur Bench, which was later withdrawn with liberty to refile.
- 2026: Petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Jaipur Bench, nearly 13 years after the impugned order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) direct grant of gallantry promotion to Head Constable; (2) promotion against the 2012-13 vacancy; and (3) costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Rule 28(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 creates a vested right to gallantry promotion upon recommendation, or whether the grant remains a discretionary power of the competent authority.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the recommendations by two senior officers demonstrated clear recognition of exceptional service, entitling him to promotion as a matter of fairness and precedent. Reliance was placed on Ranveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, and Arvind Bhardwaj v. Director General of Police, where promotions were granted following similar recommendations. It was contended that the denial without reasons violated principles of natural justice and amounted to arbitrariness under Article 14.
For the Respondent
The State countered that Rule 28(a) uses the word "may", indicating discretionary power, not mandatory obligation. It was emphasized that a duly constituted Reward Committee, after due assessment, concluded that the petitioner’s conduct merited only a cash reward. The State also invoked the doctrine of laches, noting the petitioner’s decade-long delay in challenging the order, and argued that the statutory remedy under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976, was available and unexhausted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a two-pronged analysis: first, on the doctrine of delay and laches; second, on the nature of the power under Rule 28(a).
On delay, the Court cited State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai and State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaismal, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and cannot be invoked by those who sleep on their rights. The petitioner’s delay of over a decade - coupled with the withdrawal of a prior petition - was deemed unexplained and prejudicial to administrative finality. The Court held that third-party rights and institutional stability outweighed the petitioner’s belated claim.
On the substantive issue, the Court examined the language of Rule 28(a), which states that promotion "may" be made by the Director General-cum-IGP. The Court held that this language clearly indicates a discretionary power, not a statutory right. Citing Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, the Court reaffirmed that an employee has no fundamental right to promotion, only the right to be considered under applicable rules. The Court observed:
"The petitioner cannot claim the exercise of a discretionary power in his favour as a matter of right. The Reward Committee’s assessment, even if differing from lower recommendations, was a valid administrative exercise."
The Court further noted that the absence of reasons in the order dated 17.10.2013 was not fatal, as no statutory mandate requires reasons for denial under Rule 28(a). The discretionary nature of the provision, combined with the existence of a committee-based evaluation process, insulated the decision from judicial interference absent arbitrariness or mala fides - neither of which were established.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that gallantry promotion under Rule 28(a) is not a vested right, even upon recommendation, and that inordinate delay bars the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The cash award granted was upheld as a valid exercise of administrative discretion.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Discretionary Promotions Cannot Be Claimed as Rights
- Practitioners must advise clients that recommendations from superior officers do not create enforceable entitlements under enabling rules using "may".
- Service litigants should focus on proving arbitrariness or mala fides, not mere non-acceptance of recommendations.
Delay Is a Fatal Defect in Service Writs
- Writ petitions challenging service decisions must be filed within three to six months; delays beyond two years require compelling justification.
- Withdrawal of a prior petition without prejudice does not reset the limitation clock for laches.
- Courts will not revive stale claims where administrative decisions have been acted upon and third-party rights have crystallized.
Administrative Committees Shield Decisions from Judicial Review
- When a statutory committee evaluates and rejects promotion, courts will defer unless the decision is irrational or procedurally flawed.
- The absence of reasons in such orders is not automatically invalid if the process followed is transparent and the authority is empowered to decide discretely.
