NAVIN SINHA,C.J. - (1.) The present appeals arise from a common order dated 19.12.2014 allowing three separate writ petitions setting aside a common but separate orders dated 26.7.2012 under Rule 28(a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). awarding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as reward, substituting it by special promotion under the Rules.
(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Learned Single Judge has herself observed that special promotion cannot be granted as a matter of course and that the power was discretionary, to be exercised by the Director General of Police and also that the Court cannot interfere with this exercise of discretion unless it was malafide or arbitrary. There is no finding of malafide or arbitrariness in the present cases. The assessment for grant of out of turn promotion under Rule 28 (a) is made on the recommendation by a Committee of officers. There is no challenge to the constitution of the Committee much less has the recommendation of the Committee been assailed on any specific grounds. The challenge is only to the order of the Director General of Police on basis of the recommendation. The investigation was conducted by the Respondents as a team and not individually. It was but a part of routine duty of a police officer to investigate crimes. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan has recently issued guidelines for exercise of discretion under Rule 28 on 3.5.2016. Recognition has been granted to the Respondents. The nature of recognition to be granted either by monetary award or out of turn promotion is a matter of administrative discretion and the Court ought not to have interfered with it.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Director General of Police has acted on the mere recommendation of the Selection Committee without independent application of mind. The Rules provide that such cases are required to be considered and ordered by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police. It was next submitted that the specific allegation of discrimination by citing more than one incident was not denied in the counter affidavit. The Learned Single Judge therefore ruled both with regard to arbitrariness and discrimination. In the circumstances malafide becomes an irrelevant issue.;