Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogendra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR.
SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
W. P. No. 1244/2015
Yogendra Yadav
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
____________________________________________________________
Ms. Shweta Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
____________________________________________________________ (Order) 04/05/2016 In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24-04-2014 (Annexure P/19) whereby the petitioner's claim for grant of appointment as per Regulation 52 of the Police Regulations is declined by the authorities.
2. Ms. Shweta Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2000 the petitioner was about 12 years of age and he was living in Village Basauda, District Sagar. While going to his agricultural field, he saw that in the village tank which was very deep, two children namely Ku. Rukmani (five years) and Master Amit (three years) had reached to the middle of the tank and they were drowning. The petitioner without caring his life, jumped into it and brought them out. The act of gallantry of the petitioner was taken note by the police department. In the year 2001, the State Level Gallantry Award with recommendation certificate was given to the petitioner (Annexure P/3).
3. In the year 2001, one Nitin Choubey saved one six years old boy from drowning from the same water tank. Similarly, the State Level Gallantry Award was given to him vide Annexure P/4. In addition, he was
-:- 2 -:-
W.P. No. 1244 of 2015appointed in police department vide Annexure P/5. Other persons were also given similar treatment in view of their act of gallantry. However, the petitioner's application for grant of appointment was not accepted which resulted into filing of WP. No. 20482/12 before this Court. In the said case, the petitioner prayed that he be given similar treatment qua Nitin Choubey.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of findings given by this Court on 24-02-2014, the respondents should have issued an appointment order. However, the respondents erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim on the basis of incorrect and extraneous material. By taking the Court to order dated 24-02-2014, it is urged that all the relevant witnesses have stated that at the relevant time/date of incident, the tank was deep enough in which two children could have drowned. The petitioner saved them and, therefore, the respondents should have given him similar treatment. She submits that the alleged spot inspection is made in the year 2014 i.e. after 14 years from the date of incident. Thus, the report is based on the whims of the authorities and it runs contrary to the findings of this Court and the evidence recorded by the authorities.
5. Shri Punit Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State supported the impugned order. He placed reliance on the paragraphs of the return and the report (Annexure R/2).
6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
7. Before dealing with the rival contentions advanced at the bar, it is apt to quote certain findings given by this Court in WP. No. 20482/12 which reads as under:-
" Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that from the details of the incident, which the petitioner and Shri Nitin Choubey are said to have performed, it is clear that the act of the petitioner as reflected in the Certificate - Annexure P/3 is definitely more exceptional and is of a higher category than that of Shri Nitin Choubey. To that
-:- 3 -:-W.P. No. 1244 of 2015
effect, there cannot be any dispute. That being so, then in the impugned order the Inspector General of Police has committed an error in granting appointment to Shri Nitin Choubey and rejecting the claim of the petitioner on similar considerations.
If the case of Shri Nitin Choubey and that of the petitioner are taken note of, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner's case also demanded equal consideration and in not doing so, the competent authority has committed an error and the reasons given by the competent authority in the impugned order - Annexure P/11 to say that the act of bravery of the petitioner is not of an exceptional category warranting grant of appointment cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that for a less braver act than the petitioner, Shri Nitin Choubey has been granted appointment.
Even though the respondents say that once the provisions of Regulation 52 and directory in nature, no interference can be made in the matter of appointment, I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention. As far as the present case is concerned, in the matter of the petitioner and Shri Nitin Choubey, discrimination is apparent from the face of the record and this Court can always interfere into the matter and issue appropriate directions.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Inspector General of Police to reconsider the matter in comparison to Shri Nitin Choubey and after taking note of the observations made hereinabove, the act of bravery of the petitioner and as approved in the case of Shri Nitin Choubey for the purpose of grant of appointment, take a decision afresh within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
CC as per rules."
8. A plain reading of the aforesaid order which has attained finality, makes it clear that this Court has given a specific finding that the act of bravery of the petitioner is more exceptional and is of a higher category than Nitin Choubey. This Court gave further finding that the petitioner's case demanded equal consideration and while not doing so, the competent authority has committed an error. Therefore, the petition was allowed and
-:- 4 -:-
W.P. No. 1244 of 2015the matter was remitted back to the police authorities to reconsider the matter. In view of aforesaid findings, it is clear that it was not open for the respondents to say that the petitioner's case is different than Nitin Choubey. On the contrary, this Court gave a specific finding that petitioner's case is better in terms of bravery qua Nitin Choubey.
9. Apart from this, the enquiry report (Annexure R/2) shows that the respondents have recorded the statement of children, who were saved by the petitioner. Ku. Rukmani and Master Amit (brother and sister) were saved by the petitioner in the year 2000. Both the witnesses deposed their statements before the enquiry committee wherein they specifically stated that there was sufficient water in the tank and they were drowning on the date of incident. The petitioner saved them on the said date. The other villagers, who had witnessed the said incident, have also deposed in favour of the petitioner. The common string in the depositions is that on the date of incident there was sufficient water which could have resulted into death of two children because of drowning. In view of these statements, there is no justification in holding that there was not sufficient water in the concerned water tank. I find force in the arguments of Ms. Shweta Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner that after 14 years, depth of the water tank cannot be reaccessed. In view of material produced before the enquiry committee, it is clear that there was sufficient water and the petitioner has shown bravery saved the life of two children. The respondents after having realized this, gave gallantry award to petitioner.
10. Resultantly, I am unable to approve the impugned order whereby the petitioner's claim for appointment is rejected on extraneous and irrelevant consideration. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjuncture which runs contrary to specific findings given by the Court in the first round of litigation. Hence, the impugned order dated 24-04-2014 is set aside. The respondents are directed to issue the appointment order to the
-:- 5 -:-
W.P. No. 1244 of 2015petitioner on a suitable post as per relevant police regulation within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
12. The petition is allowed.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge mohsin/