A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashwani Mishra, Advocate, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ajay Bhanot, Advocate, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. ( 2 ) HEMRAJ Singh, petitioner was employed in the Police Department of the State of U. P. He was appointed in the year 1979; after having completed training, he was given regular charge. The petitioner claims that he was repeatedly given certificates of appreciation for his exemplary services and in support of which, he has filed certain documents as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He got b certificate from NCC issued by the Defence Ministry in the year 1978 (Annexure- 2 to the writ petition ). He completed annual training camp and was given certificate in the year 1977-78. He also possesses certificates issued by Director General, National Cadet corps (Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition ). ( 3 ) IT is contended that while performing his official duty with dedication and devotion, he was given 60 cash awards and 70 letters of appreciation endorsed in his charactej roll. He also received honour marks awarded on 26. 1. 1998 and there is no adverse entry in his character roll. He also pleads that there is no enquiry pending against him (vide Paras 10 and 11 of the writ petition ). ( 4 ) THE petitioner contends that he had submitted an application for out of turn promotion before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautambudh Nagar (Annexure-7 to the writ petition ). The said authority made recommendation in favour of the petitioner for out of turn promotion vide letter dated 12. 11. 1997/ Annexure-8 to the writ petition. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Government Order dated 27. 12. 1998 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), issued by the Director General of Police lays down certain criterion for consideration of excellent service of a candidate (in pursuance to the Government Order dated 2. 1. 11. 1997/ Annexure-8 to the writ petition. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Government Order dated 27. 12. 1998 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), issued by the Director General of Police lays down certain criterion for consideration of excellent service of a candidate (in pursuance to the Government Order dated 2. 1. 1998 (particular page-46 of the paper book and part of Annexure-9 to the writ petition) which broadly lays down that a candidate must have completed 10 years service; during 10 years, he must have been on field duty for five years; he must have earned excellent category entries for five years and extra ordinarily excellent entries for another five years on the basis of which Director general of Police/secretary (Home) could recommend for consideration on out of turn basis. The government Order dated 2. 1. 1998 merely has made an additional ground by stating the test for consideration of out of turn promotion by providing basis of excellent service record for out of turn promotion in the discretion of the Director General of Police/home Secretary apart from ground already mentioned in the original Government Order dated 3. 2. 1994 (copy of which has been placed before the Court) which provided out of turn promotion on the basis of exemplary bravery/act of valour. The aforesaid Government Order dated 2. 1. 1998 did not confer power upon Director General of Police to add, substract or amend any of the conditions in the government Order providing for out of turn promotion considering the eligibility criterion contained in the departmental order dated 27. 12. 1998 (issued by the Director General of police/annexure-9 to the writ petition ). The case of the petitioner was processed and as already mentioned, the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police strongly recommended his case for out of turn promotion. ( 6 ) BEFORE the petitioner could be given out of turn promotion, another Government Order dated 31. 7. 1999 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) was issued which provided additional grounds/guidelines by adding condition for consideration of 10 years service record by putting condition of the same being preceding 10 years service. The petitioner seeks to challenge the said departmental order dated 31. 7. 1999, issued by the Director General of Police which required five years field duty in last 10 years preceding at the time of consideration of out of turn promotion. The petitioner seeks to challenge the said departmental order dated 31. 7. 1999, issued by the Director General of Police which required five years field duty in last 10 years preceding at the time of consideration of out of turn promotion. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Director General of Police has no jurisdiction to change the criterion/eligibility field by issuing a letter subsequently which could affect the process of out of turn promotion which had already been initiated on the basis of government Order of 1994 (as mended by Government Order dated 2. 1. 1998) read along with order dated 31. 7. 1999, issued by the Director General of Police (Annexure-10 of the writ petition ). ( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Ajay Bhanot, Advocate has submitted that the petitioner had no vested right to be enforced in the matter of out of turn promotion which ought to be completed as per amended criterion vide D. G. P. s order dated 31. 7. 1999 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Sri Ajay Bhanot has referred to following decisions : 1. K. Jagdeesan v. Union of India, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 383 (Supreme Court ). 2. S. Prakash and Anr. v. K. M. Kurian and Ors. , (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 624. 3. Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Limited, (1999) 9 Supreme Court cases 334. ( 9 ) THE case of K. Jagdeesan (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in that case the appellant was not at all considered for promotion when the amendment in question was enforced because of his seniors being available in the Grade. It is true that no one can complain on the basis of unforeseen probability. ( 10 ) IN the matter of S. Prakash and Anr. (supra), reliance has been placed on Para 20 of the judgment. It is true that no one can complain on the basis of unforeseen probability. ( 10 ) IN the matter of S. Prakash and Anr. (supra), reliance has been placed on Para 20 of the judgment. I do not find this case to be of help to the respondents as will be evident from perusal of following observation of the Banch in Para-20 of the said judgment which reads : "from the aforesaid GO, it is clear that during the selection process, the Government had accepted the advice of the Public Service Commission that the changes in the qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment introduced after the issue of the notification for selection to the post by the Public service Commission will be given effect to in future selections only with an exception as mentioned therein. As stated earlier, in the present case selection process was not over till the list of selected candidates was published by the public Service Commission on 13. 5. 1995 and the impugned Note (3) does not change the qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment. It only fills up the lacuna or clarifies the ambiguity prevailing for computation of ratio or percentage for appointment by direct recruitment and by transfer. . . . . . . " ( 11 ) THE facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable because the process of promotion had already been initiated. ( 12 ) AT this place, the argument made on behalf of the petitioner can be appropriately noted wherein it was contended that by providing additional condition of preceding five years vide order dated 31. 7. 1999 (Annexure-10 to, the writ petition), the chances of giving undue play to the concerned authority for inducting, or excluding candidates from consideration of out of turn promotion cannot be ruled out. The argument is quite understandable. ( 13 ) THE third case of Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH (supra), apart from being not directly applicable to the facts of the present case, this Court would like to note that it is well settled that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India, can very well interfere, if it finds some arbitrary actions which do not stand the test of reasonableness. ( 14 ) AS noted above, the change in criterion once process has already stared for out of turn promotion, has to be checked and tested with care and possibility of giving free hand to the concerned authority to exclude arbitrarily certain candidates and/or include others, conferring undue favour, cannot be ruled out. It is another thing that criterion is laid down initially before starting the process but that is not the case here. Moreover, the Government Order merely required excellent service record to be the basis for recommending candidates for out of turn promotion. The said Government Order is not at all ambiguous or requires any clarification. excellent service record, clearly means entire service record. ( 15 ) IN view of the above, I find that the case of the petitioner should have been considered for out of turn promotion as per Director General of police letter dated 27. 12. 1998 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), ignoring the departmental order dated 31. 7. 1999 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed subsequently. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion and if he is found fit as per government Order, then confer all such benefit as has been given to his juniors in the past so that the petitioner does not suffer for his belated consideration of out of turn promotion. ( 17 ) THE writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.