JUDGMENT : O.P. Garg, J. 1. In order to boost the morale of the police personnel and to give incentive to the bravery and exemplary courage, enthusiasm and gallantry of the police officers who have risked their lives in devotion to their duty, the State Government in Home Department has issued Order No. 665 (1) Chha Pu-1-24/9.3, dated 3.2.1994 for out of turn promotion to such Constables. Sub-In specters and Platoon Commanders employed in the police force who have shown irrepressible fervour and courage during the performance of their duties. 2. The petitioner Kaushal Kumar Yadav who joined the police force as Sub-Inspector in the year 1984 has been recognised to be an officer who is brave, courageous and highly committed to his duties. He had been awarded 'Prashasti Patra and certificates for his excellent performance and devotion to duty by the D.I.G., Agra Zone and the Superintendent of Police. Aligarh. In the year 1994, Sri Yadav came to be posted as Station Officer, Theriyawni in district Fatehpur. Within the jurisdiction of police station. Kishanpur, Bakebar some notorious criminals fired at police party and in the wrangle one Constable Genda Lal was injured and the miscreants escaped with his official rifle. A report of the incident was lodged on 16.1.1994 at P.S. Kishanpur as case Crime No. 7 of 1994. u/s 394, I.P.C. against three unknown persons. The present petitioner was asked to shoulder the responsibility to investigate the case. On 23.1.1994, during the course of investigation, the petitioner was successful in apprehending the accused Kamlesh Kori with a country-made pistol and on his pointing out the petitioner who was leading the police party in the night of 24.1.1994 raided a thatched house in the field owned by Ram Nihore Sonker, 2 km. away towards the southern side village Ekdila and challenged the miscreants/accused/ desperadoes who were successful in escaping but in a huff left the looted official rifle which was seized by the present petitioner. 3. On the strength of the above event, the Superintendent of Police through the D.I.G. of the range sent the proposal for out of turn promotion to the petitioner. The proposal ultimately came in the hands of the D.I.G. Headquarters. Allahabad who placed the same along with the subsequent representations of the petitioner before a Committee of 4 members for screening the matter. The proposal ultimately came in the hands of the D.I.G. Headquarters. Allahabad who placed the same along with the subsequent representations of the petitioner before a Committee of 4 members for screening the matter. The recommendations for out of turn promotion was turned down and it was also approved by the Director General of Police, U. P. who is the competent authority to approve or disapprove the out of turn promotion on the ground mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order. The view of the Committee as has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit was that the act of the petitioner in seizing the official rifle after challenging the miscreants was an ordinary act though praiseworthy, but certainly it does not fall within the ambit of the expression exemplary courage, bravery and gallantry ; that there was no danger to the life to any one of the police officers and the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner's act was valorous or valiant. It was also concluded that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 as the incident had occurred in January, 1994, i.e., prior to the issue of the Government Order. 4. The petitioner, shocked and surprised as he was to receive communication dated 7.3.1995 of D.I.G. (Karmik) headquarters and passed on by letter dated 14.3.1995 written by Superintendent of Police. Fatehpur. Annexure-3 to the writ petition, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the aforesaid communication be quashed and the respondents be commanded to grant out of turn promotion to the petitioner in the tight of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994. 5. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. 6. Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel. 7. To begin with, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the interpretation of the department that the benefit of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 cannot be extended in respect of those incidents of bravery and gallantry which had taken place prior to the date of the aforesaid Government Order is not only misconceived but absurd. 7. To begin with, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the interpretation of the department that the benefit of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 cannot be extended in respect of those incidents of bravery and gallantry which had taken place prior to the date of the aforesaid Government Order is not only misconceived but absurd. It was also pointed out that in some cases the department has given the benefit of out of turn promotion to certain police officials who had exhibited exemplary courage and bravery in the incidents which had occurred prior to the date of Government order and, therefore, the case of the petitioner could not have been turned down on this untenable ground. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only reason mentioned in the letter, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion is that the incidents which have taken place prior to the passing of the Government Order cannot be taken into consideration and subsequently by the counter-affidavit, other reasons cannot be imported to thwart the claim of the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner. New Delhi and others AIR 1978 SC 951 in which it was observed that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Reliance was placed on the following observations made in Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 . "Public orders publicly made. In exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 . "Public orders publicly made. In exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the action and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must DP construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." The Supreme Court made it clear that the orders are not like the old wine becoming better as they grow older. 8. It is true that, in the communication transmitted to the petitioner, the detailed reasons for rejecting his claim for out of turn promotion were not disclosed and the only ground communicated to him was that his case was not covered by the Government Order, but the fact remains that the committee constituted for the purpose had considered the claim of the petitioner from all the angles and rejected the same. Including the ground that the provisions of the Government Order are not attracted to the case of the petitioner. The observations made in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra) are not applicable in the instant case as it cannot be said that the respondents have in any manner taken the additional grounds to support the order or have come forward with fresh reasons which did not weigh when they rejected the claim of the petitioner. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the claim of the petitioner was turned down primarily also on the ground that the Government Order did not apply to all the incidents which had taken place prior to 3.2.1994. The respondents, it appears, were swayed away by this dominant consideration though it was not only wrong but absurd that the Government Order did not apply to the prior incidents. 9. The Government Order dated 3.2.1994 embraces within its ambit all the past incidents or events in which the acts of exemplary courage and bravery have been exhibited by the police officers. To say that the order would apply to those incidents which had taken place after 3.2.1994 would be to kill the very soul and spirit which impelled the authority to issue the order. To say that the order would apply to those incidents which had taken place after 3.2.1994 would be to kill the very soul and spirit which impelled the authority to issue the order. The element of prospectivity applied to the Government Order by the department is wholly unjustified and cannot be approved from any point of view. The matter may be elucidated by an example. Suppose, the Government Order is issued that a particular benefit shall be conferred to those persons who are B.A. passed. Can subsequently, Government or its instrumentality say that the said order would not apply to those persons who have passed B.A. prior to the date of the order. The commonsense reply would be that the Interpretation of the Government agency is against the stark realities. Capricious and arbitrary interpretation put by the respondents in the matter of the petitioner that the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 shall not apply to an incident which had taken place in January. 1994 has to be totally ignored as it is nothing but a teasing illusion. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that no criteria or guidelines have been prescribed to indicate the circumstances in which a person may be considered for promotion out of turn, in view of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 and, therefore, mini-classification and micro distinction which has received condemnation by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. G. V. Kostia AIR 1974SC 3 cannot be approved. According to the learned counsel. It was not necessary that the petitioner or somebody else must have received the injuries as it is the totality of the circumstances in which the act of gallantry and courage has to be considered. Learned standing counsel pointed out that the Government Order itself provides for a yardstick to measure and determine the exemplary courage and bravery. A reference may be made to sub-para (3) of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994, Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit, which runs as follows:- ^^¼3½ iqfyl cy ds ,sls vkj{kh ;k mi&fujh{kd@IykVwu dekUMj vnE; lkgl vkSj 'kkS;Z Án'kZu djus okys iqfyl dehZ dh dksfV esa vk;saxs] ftUgksaus dq[;kr vkradoknh ;k t?kU; vijk/kh ds lkFk eqBHksM+ ;k fxjrkjh esa lkgl vkSj 'kkS;Z Ánf'kZr fd;k gks ;k vius drZO; ikyu ds nkSjku tksf[ke Hkjk dk;Z fd;k gksA** 11. My impression to the whole matter is that the Committee constituted for the purpose by the Director General of Police has rejected the claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground of non-applicability of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 as the incident had taken place in January, 1994. The matter requires reconsideration ignoring the above untenable ground. 12. This petition, therefore, is finally disposed of with the direction that the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion shall be considered by the Committee constituted for the purpose afresh ignoring the fact that the incident had taken place prior to the Issue of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994. Respondent No. 3 Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik) Headquarters, Allahabad shall put-up the papers of the petitioner before the concerned committee within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and thereafter, the Committee/Director General of Police, U. P. shall take proper decision in the matter in the light of the provisions of the Government Order aforesaid. 13. It may, however, be made clear that no observations made in this judgment shall in any manner be construed to fetter the power and discretion of the competent authority to determine whether the participation and the acts committed by the petitioner during the course of investigation of the case registered as Crime No. 7 of 1994 u/s 394. I.P.C. P.S. Kishanpur, district Fatehpur, fall within the ambit of the expression exemplary courage, bravery and gallantry ^^vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z** as used in the Government Order aforesaid.