Recognition of bravery and eligibility for promotion are separate questions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held, refusing a police constable Out-Of-Turn Promotion as of right for rescuing two neighbours whose clothes had caught fire and ruling that an off-duty act, however commendable, does not by itself fall within Rule 56(3) of the 1973 Rules.
Jabalpur: Judicial review looks at whether the competent authority’s decision was legal, not at how brave the Court thinks an employee was, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has said while allowing the State’s writ appeal. It set aside a Single Judge order that had directed out-of-turn promotion to Head Constable for a police constable who rescued two neighbours whose clothes had caught fire, and upheld the competent authority’s 2020 decision rejecting his claim [The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Santosh Dubey].
Justice Pradeep Mittal wrote the judgment of the Division Bench, which also included Justice Vivek Rusia, and it was delivered on October 30, 2026. The Bench called the constable’s conduct commendable but said that was not the question before it.
A discretion, not a right
Rule 56(3), the Bench read, is a discretionary power. Its listed categories, among them anti-dacoity operations, law and order situations, shooting competitions and specified police medals, point to distinguished performance in a field connected with police duties. The respondent’s act took place off duty and did not arise from any official assignment, and a cash reward of Rs 1,000 could not be equated with the medals named in the Rule. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of M.P. v. Sanjay Shukla, it held that out-of-turn promotion cannot be claimed as of right.
Nor did it accept that others had been promoted for lesser acts. Each claim, the Court said, has to be examined on its own facts:
“An order granting such promotion in another case, even if considered erroneous, cannot create a right in favour of the respondent to claim similar treatment contrary to the Rule.”
On the limits of its own role, the Bench said:
“We are conscious of the fact that the respondent’s conduct in rescuing the two persons was commendable and deserves appreciation. However, judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision taken by the competent authority and not with substituting the Court’s own assessment of the degree of bravery displayed by an employee.”
The act, it added, “though deserving of recognition, does not fall within the categories contemplated under Rule 56(3)”, and the authority’s decision did not suffer from arbitrariness or perversity.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Explained: Employee Has No Right to Promotion, Only Right to Be Considered
More than two decades of pursuing the claim
The respondent, Santosh Dubey, had rescued his neighbours, Ms. Nalini Bai and Mr. Francis Joseph, after their clothes caught fire. He received a cash reward of Rs 1,000, but the competent committee found him unsuitable for out-of-turn promotion under Rule 56(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973.
He kept pressing the claim for more than two decades. On September 7, 2020, the High Court directed the State to reconsider it on a fresh representation, and by an order dated December 14, 2020, the competent authority again held that the incident did not fall within Rule 56(3).
Then, on August 16, 2022, a Single Judge allowed his writ petition, W.P. No. 24814/2003, and directed that he be promoted to Head Constable with effect from May 8, 2000, the date of his representation. The Single Judge had noted that his bravery was undisputed and that other police personnel had received out-of-turn promotion for acts considered less significant. The State challenged that order in Writ Appeal No. 863 of 2023.
What each side argued
Government Advocate Piyush Jain, for the State, argued that Rule 56(3) is an enabling provision that creates no enforceable right, and that the incident took place after 8:30 pm, when the respondent was off duty. Advocate Nand Kishore Tiwari appeared for the respondent and defended the Single Judge’s order.
Retrospective promotion also unsustainable
“In the absence of any statutory entitlement to out-of-turn promotion, the respondent could not have been granted retrospective promotion merely on the basis of his representation or the passage of time during which he pursued his claim.”
The outcome
Holding that the Single Judge had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by substituting his own assessment for that of the competent authority, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of August 16, 2022 in W.P. No. 24814/2003, and upheld the order of December 14, 2020 rejecting the claim. No costs were imposed.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates a settled service-law position. Where a rule says the authority “may” promote, it confers a discretion and not a right, and courts will interfere only if the decision is arbitrary, perverse or contrary to the rule. In the police, out-of-turn promotion is tied to distinguished performance connected with police work, not to every humanitarian act by a police officer.
It also reaffirms that parity cannot be claimed on the strength of a wrong order in someone else’s favour, and that years spent litigating a claim do not turn it into an entitlement to retrospective promotion. Recognition of bravery and eligibility for promotion, the Court made clear, are separate questions.
Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Santosh Dubey [Writ Appeal No. 863 of 2023]
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:87972
Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Piyush Jain, Government Advocate, for the appellants/State; Nand Kishore Tiwari, Advocate, for the respondent
