1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:

                  “1. The respondents may be directed to consider and grant gallantry promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Constable as per the recommendations made by Superintendent of Police, Ajmer vide Letter dated 09.10.2012 and Inspector General of Police Ajmer, Range Ajmer vide Letter dated 08.01.2014 as per the Rule 28 (a) of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Rules 1989.

                  2. The respondents may be directed to accord promotion to the petitioner against the vacancy of the year 2012-2013, in which promotion has been denied their Team in connection with FIR No.441/2012 registered at Police Station Beawar City.

                  3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted.

                  4. The cost of the writ petition may be allowed in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. The primary issue for consideration before this Court is that the petitioner is aggrieved of the denial of ‘Gallantry Promotion’ to him, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989.

3. The nitty-gritty of the matter as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into the services of the Police Department in the year 2007 on being appointed as Constable (General Duty) bearing Belt No. 1309, whereas one Shri Vinod Kumar entered service in the year 2007 bearing Belt No. 1315. The petitioner is presently discharging his duties as a Constable in the respondent Police Department.

4. It was submitted that while the petitioner and Shri Vinod Kumar were posted at Police Station Beawar, an FIR was registered by one Shri Abhay Kumar Sankhala, stating therein that his elder brother Shri Mali Sankhala had been kidnapped by certain unknown persons and that ransom of Rs. 15 lakhs was being demanded for his release. Learned counsel further submitted that immediately after filing of the FIR, the authorities of the Police Department constituted a team consisting of the present petitioner along with Vinod Kumar for investigation and search of Shri Mali Sankhala. During the course of investigation and search, it was revealed that the accused persons after kidnapping had taken Shri Mali Sankhala to Sahajahanpur (Alwar). It was further submitted that the members of the team, after collecting requisite information, came to know about the location where the accused persons were hiding. Subsequently, the police personnel followed the accused and, while exchange of fire, successfully completed the operation and rescued Shri Mali Sankhala.

5. At this nascent juncture, learned counsel submitted that under Rule 28(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police is empowered to make nomination for promotion cadre course up to 10% of the vacancy to be filled in by way of promotion in a particular year of those police personnel who have shown outstanding work in anti-dacoity, anti-smuggling or in any special field of police work, including performance in games and sport, or have put in not less than 20 years of service exclusively.

6. It was also submitted that in appreciation of the brave and extraordinary efforts of the petitioner and the team, the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, recommended and forwarded the names of all members of the task team for out-of-turn promotion, vide letter dated 09.10.2012. It was specifically recommended that the petitioner may be given out-of-turn / gallantry promotion on the post of Head Constable from the post of Constable. Learned counsel further submitted that in furtherance of the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, the Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, after taking note of the entire factual scenario of the case, forwarded a well-reasoned and speaking recommendation for awarding the benefit of special promotion as per the provisions of Rule 28(a) to the petitioner and other team members.

7. It was submitted that to the utter disbelief and surprise of the petitioner, subsequent to the aforesaid recommendations, the name of the petitioner and Vinod Kumar was not considered for out-of-turn promotion, rather they were awarded cash prize of Rs. 5,000/-, vide order dated 17.10.2013 issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 17.10.2013 does not disclose any reason whatsoever for denying gallantry promotion to the petitioner as per the provisions of Rule 28(a) of the Rules of 1989. It was lastly submitted that the petitioner along with Vinod Kumar, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2013, submitted a number of representations to the respondents with the request to reconsider the matter and award them gallantry promotion instead of cash prize.

8. In support of the contentions noted herein, learned counsel had relied upon the ratios encapsulated in SBCWP No. 6330/2023 (Ranveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), SBCWP No. 11824/2016 (Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), SBCWP No. 946/2006 (Arjun Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), SBCWP No. 15143/2010 (Arvind Bhardwaj & Anr. Vs. Director General of Police & Anr.).

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents at the outset, concisely pointed that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as on the basis of the recommendations made, a speedy statutory remedy of appeal was already available to the petitioner.

10. It was also argued that if such writ petition is entertained without first availing the alternate statutory remedy available under the Rules, it would lead to a flood of litigation, rendering the provisions of alternate statutory remedy nugatory and meaningless. Therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone, as the petitioner had neither availed nor exhausted the statutory, alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy of appeal available to them under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976.

11. Learned counsel submitted that the said Act of 1976 provides for constitution of Appellate Tribunals for service matters and matters incidental thereto. Under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976, the expression ‘service matter’ includes, inter alia, matters relating to promotion. It is submitted that since the grievance raised by the petitioners pertains to promotion, which squarely falls within the definition of ‘service matter’ under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

12. Further it was argued that the recommendations made in favour of the petitioners and others were duly considered at the Police Headquarters level by a duly constituted Reward Committee. It was submitted that the said Reward Committee, after considering the entire material placed before it, assessed the works and duties performed by the petitioner and did not find their cases fit for special nomination. However, the Committee found that the petitioners were entitled to receive cash reward of Rs. 5,000/- along with commendation certificate (vide order dated 17.10.2013).

13. It was further submitted that there is no provision under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which mandates that reasons are required to be assigned if for any reason special nomination is denied. Learned counsel submitted that since the Reward Committee, after making its assessment, did not find the cases of the petitioner fit for special nomination and only found them entitled for cash reward and commendation certificates, thence, the order dated 17.10.2013 was rightly passed.

14. Learned counsel submitted that as regards for proper and correct assessment of the acquired achievements and works done by police personnel whose cases are sent for reward of cash or special nomination for P.C.C., the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide order dated 30.06.2014, made it clear that a Committee for this purpose has been constituted vide order dated 22.05.2005 and order dated 09.06.2010. It was apprised that the said Committee consisted of the following persons:

                  (a) IGP, C.I.D. (C.B.), Jaipur – Chairman;

                  (b) Senior-most IGP, C.I.D. (C.B.), Jaipur – Member;

                  (c) IGP (HQ), Jaipur – Member.

15. Learned counsel submitted that after recommendations were made by the Superintendent of Police, District Ajmer and the Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, the matter was considered at the PHQ level by the duly constituted Reward Committee. It was further contended that the said Committee, after considering the cases of the petitioner, did not find them fit for special nomination for P.C.C., and only after due application of mind and following procedure, the action in question was taken.

16. Learned counsel further submitted that Rule 28(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, uses the expression “may” and not “shall”, which clearly indicates that the provision is discretionary in nature and not mandatory. It was submitted that grant of out-of-turn / gallantry promotion under Rule 28(a) is not automatic and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, even where recommendations are made by superior officers.

17. Learned counsel submitted that the Rule merely enables the competent authority to consider cases for special nomination, subject to assessment by the Reward Committee, and does not cast any statutory obligation upon the respondents to grant such promotion. Therefore, once the competent Committee, after due assessment, found the petitioner entitled only for a cash award and not for special nomination, the petitioner cannot claim gallantry promotion as a vested or enforceable right. Hence, the impugned order dated 17.10.2013 is in consonance with the scheme of Rule 28(a) and does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court.

18. Consecutively, it was argued that the petitioner did not raise any objection at the relevant time and, after an inordinate delay of approximately a decade had filed the present writ petition, which, is not at all maintainable, as being barred by delay and laches. It was submitted that although no specific period of limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition, there are catena of judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court holding that such petitions must be filed within a reasonable time, generally within three to six months. In any case, the delay as of the matter at hand can be said to be a reasonable period.

19. Having heard the submissions put-forth by learned counsel representing the parties, upon an assiduous scanning of the material available on record, and taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court does not find any merit in the instant matter, as in order to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, for the reasons discussed hereunder.

20. Issues for Consideration :-

                  (a) Whether the impugned order dated 17.10.2013, awarding the petitioner cash reward of Rs. 5,000/- instead of special nomination, suffers from arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

                  (b) Whether the petitioner is entitled, as a matter of right, to out-of-turn / gallantry promotion under Rule 28(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, instead of the cash award granted vide order dated 17.10.2013?

Issue (a) — Discretionary Writ Jurisdiction, Delay and Merit

Review :

21. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is inherently discretionary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that where the petitioner approaches the Court after a long lapse of time without satisfactory explanation, the Court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, unless compelling circumstances justify interference. Moreso, reference can also be made to few decisions of the Apex Court, where inordinate delay and    laches, on the part of the litigant in approaching the Court has been disapproved, as in State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. Further, in State of M.P., v. Nandlal Jaismal reported in 1986 (4) SCC 566, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 24, held as follows:

                  "24. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been emphasised time and again that where there is inordinate and unexplained delay and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the High Court would decline to interfere, even if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. .........Of course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait jacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But, such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay or creation of third party rights would by their very nature be few and far between. Ultimately it would be a matter within the discretion of the court; ex hypothesi every discretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it."

                  (Emphasis laid)

22. Thus, at the matter at hand the petitioner’s challenge to the order dated 17.10.2013 was filed after an inordinate period of about a decade [First round of litigation before the Principal Seat, Jodhpur (bearing no. 4840/2017) being filed after a delay of approximately four years; which was subsequently withdrawn with a liberty to file a petition before Jaipur Bench] without any cogent explanation for such delay. The doctrine of laches and delay is well rooted in supervisory jurisdictions such as Article 226, and where rights of third parties or administrative finality are involved, equity demands that stale claims should not be revived to unsettle settled promotions or awards.

23. In the absence of any demonstrable illegality or arbitrariness in the decision-making process, and considering the discretionary nature of both the Rule and writ jurisdiction, there is no basis to exercise the extraordinary remedy of judicial review in this case.

24. Issue (a) is accordingly answered against the petitioner.

Issue (b) — Promotion not a Right but Discretionary :

25. It is well settled law that promotion is not a fundamental or automatic right of a government servant, and what a person has is the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the relevant rules. The actual grant of promotion is within the discretion of the appointing authority unless rules expressly make it mandatory. In the dictum of Bihar State Electricity Board And Others& Others V. Dharamdeo Das: 2024 INSC 549 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules.” This principle aligns with settled service jurisprudence which draws a distinction between the chance of promotion and being considered for promotion under the applicable Rules. Mere entitlement to be considered does not translate into a right to the grant of promotion as a matter of right.

26. Nonetheless, it can be noted that the provisions of Rule 28(a), on its face, is enabling and discretionary in using the word “may” and does not cast a statutory obligation to grant out-of-turn / gallantry promotions. It is for the competent authority, through the Reward Committee, competing factors before exercising that discretion. For the sake of brevity the relevant Rule is reproduced herein below:

                  28. Special nomination for promotion cadre course.- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (1) to (3) of rule 27 above:

                  (a) Nomination for promotion cadre course for next higher rank upto Sub-Inspector in Section I and Section III and upto Platoon Commander in Section II and Section IV of Rule 4 upto 10% of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion in a particular year, may be made by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police in case of those who have shown outstanding work in the anti- dacoity, anti-smuggling or in any special field of Police work including performance in Games and Sports, or have put in not less than 20 years service exclusively as member of the service and also have exceptionally good and unblemished record of service with integrity:

                  Provided that no member of the service shall be nominated more than once on account of 20 years service as mentioned above.

27. In the present case, the competent Reward Committee considered the petitioner’s work and concluded that he was not fit for special nomination but was entitled to a cash award of Rs. 5,000/-. The impugned order dated 17.10.2013 was, therefore, a considered administrative exercise of discretion and cannot be faulted as arbitrary merely because the statutory power remained available. The petitioner cannot claim the exercise of a discretionary power in his favour as a matter of right.

28. Accordingly, Issue (b) is answered against the petitioner.

29. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, as that the petitioner has no vested right to demand out-of-turn / gallantry promotion where the relevant Rule entrusts a discretionary power to the authority; that the impugned order dated 17.10.2013 awarding only a cash reward was a valid exercise of discretion based on the assessment of the Reward Committee; the writ petition is bereft of merit, and the petitioner’s delay in approaching this Court further disentitles him from extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

30. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No orders are made as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.