JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.8.2001 passed by respondent No. 1, Director General of Police, Lucknow and for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner forthwith on out of turn basis. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police Department in 1989. He while posted in District Azamgarh was taken and attached with a Special Squad formed for the abolition of crimes as per the instructions of the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. 4. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was the only person who by his tiredless efforts with the help of the Squad got success in nabbing the criminals and unsocial elements. It is claimed that the petitioner showed courage to arrest the criminals red handed for which he was awarded Prashasti Patra on 6.5.1997 by the Superintendent of Police, Mau. The then Superintendent of Police, Mau made a recommendation to the Government for out of turn promotion of the petitioner which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is claimed that the petitioner showed courage to arrest the criminals red handed for which he was awarded Prashasti Patra on 6.5.1997 by the Superintendent of Police, Mau. The then Superintendent of Police, Mau made a recommendation to the Government for out of turn promotion of the petitioner which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Relevant extract is as under: Ekkuuh; eq[;ea=h] m0iz0 ds funsa'kkuqlkj fnukad 9&4&97 ls tuin esa pyk;s tk jgs vijk/k mUewyu vfHk;ku ds nkSjku vkj{kh 56 uk0;q0 ;ksxsUnz dqekj flg] ftls vfHk;ku gsrq xfBr fo'ks"k LdokMZ ls lEc) fd;k x;k Fkk A ds vFkd ifjJe djds fo'ks"k :fp ysdj lqjkxjlh djds rFkk Loa; nfcl esa 'kkfey jgdj ekeyksa esa fo'ks"k LdokM+Z dks egRoiw.kZ lQyrk fnykus ds ;ksxnku fd;k bl vkj{kh ds iz;klks ls gqbZ fxjrkjh@cjkenxh dk fooj.k fuEu gS& 1& fnukad 17&4&97 dks vfHk;qDr ohjsUnz ;kno vkfn dqy 27 fdxzk voS/k xkatk ds lkFk fxjrkj fd;k x;k] eqdnek vijk/k la0 161 o 163@97 /kkjk 18@20 ,u0Mh0ih0,l0 ,DV Fkkuk Vksyk esa iathd`r gqvk vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A 2& fnukad 7&4&97 dks vfHk;qDr jke iyV pkSgku dks 177 fdyksxzke voS/k xkatk ds lkFk fxjrkj fd;k ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 164@97 /kkjk 18@20 ,u0Mh0ih0,l0 ,DV Fkkuk eqgEenkckn es iathd`r gqvk A vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A 3& fnukad 18&4&97 dks vfHk;qDr lfPpnkuUn jk; dks 150 fdyksxzke voS/k xkatk ds lkFk fxjrkj fd;k ftldk vijk/k la[;k 253&8@97 fdyksxzke /kkjk 18@20 ,u0Mh0ih0,l0 ,DV Fkkuk dksrokyh es iathd`r gqvkA vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS 4& fnukad 2&4&97 dks vfHk;qDr ijos'k 'kelkn o ukS'kkn iq=x.k veurqYykg gehniqj ds ;gka ls voS/k vXus;kL= cuokus dh QSDVjh cjken dh x;h rFkk ,d dVVk nks fjokYoj] v/nZ fufeZr dVVs ds lkFk midj.k cjken gq, ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 185 ls 188@97 /kkjk 25@27@5 'kL= vf/kfu;e Fkkuk ?kkslh es iathd`r gqvk] vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A 5& fnukaad 2&5&97 dks Hkqous'oj 'kkgh mQZ ekygu 'kkgh ds ;gkW voS/k dVVk cukus dh QSDVjh cjken dh ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 182@97 /kkjk 5@7@25 'kL= vf/kfu;e Fkkuk e/kqcu es iathd`r gqvk] vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A 6& fnukad 2&5&97 dks Jh d`".k rsyh iq= xkSjh'kadj rsyh lk0 oudVk Fkkuk e/kqcu dks rhu vnn thfor cEc ds lkFk fxjrkj fd;k ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 183@97 dh /kkjk 5 foLQksVd vf/kfu;e Fkkuk e/kqcu es iathd`r gqvk] vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A 7& fnukad 1&5&97 dks vfHk;qDr gfjoa'k flag iq= doy Hkku flag lk0 dsyoj] Fkkuk ?kkslh dks ,d vnn fjokYoj fd lkFk fxjrkj fd;k ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 206@97 /kkjk 25 kL= vf/kfu;e Fkkuk ?kkslh es iathd`r gqvk] vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A 8& fnukad 3&5&97 dks vfHk;qDr lhrkjke iq= fo'oukFk lk0 jlwyiqj Fkkuk ?kkslh dsl ,d vnn dVVk ds lkFk rFkk ikWp dkjrwl ds lkFk fxjrkj fd;k ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 212@97 /kkjk 25 kL= vf/kfu;e Fkkuk ?kkslh es iathd`r gqvk] vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A mijksDr fxjrkjh@cjkenxh vkj{kh ;ksxsUnz dqekj flag dh Hkwfedk vR;Ur ljkguh; jgh gSA bu miyfC/k;ks ds QyLo:Ik bl vfHk;ku ds nkSjku tuin iqfyl em dh Nfo mTtoy gqbZ bl vkj{kh dks mijksDr dk;ksZ ds uxn /kujkf'k ls iqjLd`r fd;k x;k rFkk iz'kfLr Ik= iznku fd;k x;h gS A vr% Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj flag dka0 ukxfjd iqfyl dks ljkguh; mRd`"V] drZO;fu"B ,oa cgwewY; dk;ksZ ds fy, gsM dkULVsfcy ukxfjd iqfyl ds in ij vkmV vkQZ VuZ izksUufr iznku dh tkus gsrq izcy laLrqfr dh tkrh gS A izEkkf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd dka0 56 ukxfjd iqfyl ;ksxsUnz dqekj flag ds fo:) fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ tkWp@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh@vkijkf/kd izdj.k U;k;ky; esa yfEcr ugh gS budh lR;fu"Bk izekf.kr dh tkrh gS gŒ vLi"V ¼ih;w"k vkuUn½ iqfyl v/kh{kd em A 5. It is further alleged that the Superintendent of Police, Mau also wrote a letter dated 6.10.1977 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh Zone, Azmagarh reommendating out of turn promotion to the petitioner. In turn, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh Zone, Azamgarh by his letter dated 27.6.1998 to the then Superintendent of Police, Mau directed him to furnish the details about the petitioner which were, however not submitted to him. 6. It is submitted that the police squad had been constituted for nabbing the criminals which consisted of many police personnel, except the petitioner no other person of the squad was recommendation for out of turn promotion and this fact proves that it was the petitioner and none-else in the squad who did exceptional and extra ordinary courage as a result of which the squad succeeded in arresting the hardened criminals and reducing the crimes in the range. When no action was taken by the respondents for out of turn promotion of the petitioner, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3041 of 2001 before this Court which was disposed of finally vide order dated 31.1.2001 directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the question of out of turn promotion of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. It is stated by the petitioner that inspite of the order of this Court having been served upon the respondents nothing was done, compelling him to file Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 1739 of 2001. The respondents became annoyed by filing contempt petition and the Director General of Police by order dated 23.8.2001 rejected the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion, hence this writ petition. 8. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 23.8.2001 is illegal, perverse and arbitrary; that the recommendation was made by the then Superintendent of Police, Mau considering the exemplary and extra ordinary work done by the petitioner taking risk of his life; and that the G.O. Dated 3.2.1994 fully covers and supports, the case of the petitioner. 9. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 23.8.2001 is illegal, perverse and arbitrary; that the recommendation was made by the then Superintendent of Police, Mau considering the exemplary and extra ordinary work done by the petitioner taking risk of his life; and that the G.O. Dated 3.2.1994 fully covers and supports, the case of the petitioner. 9. He further submits that the petitioner was the only police personnel who was recommended and given cash award by the State Government fund for his exemplary and extraordinary courageous work in nabbing the criminals by spying himself; and that the report sent by then Superintendent of Police, Mau was wrong, perverse and malafide that the petitioner does not come under the provisions of G.O. Dated 3.2.1994 and it appears that he was not aware of the facts as the record was not before him. 10. The counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not shown any extraordinary courage or special role in nabbing the criminals and in recovering illegal arms and ammunitions from them, rather it was on account of joint efforts of police squad constituted for the purpose and the petitioner has performed his general duty. He also submits that respondent No. 1 has rightly passed the order dated 23.8.2001, hence no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. He also submits that respondent No. 1 has rightly passed the order dated 23.8.2001, hence no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.8.2001 is as under: rnkuqlkj iqfyl v/kh{kd] em us iwoZ fopkjksijkUr ;kph ds d`R; dks 'kklukns'k fnukafdr 3&2&94 ds vUrZxr vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z iznZ'ku dh ifjf/k es u ikrs gq, vkmV vkWQ VuZ izksUufr dh laLrqfr ugha dhA viuh vk[;k esa iqfyl v/kh{kd] em us ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd vijkf/k;ks dh fxjrkjh djus ,oa uktk;t vlygk dh cjkenxh esa ;kph dks dksbZ O;fDrxr fof'k"V Hkwfedk ugh gS] cfYd iqfyl Ldok;M ds lkewfgd iz;kl ds Qy:o:Ik vijkf/k;ksa dh fxjrkj fd;s tkus essa lQyrk izkIr gqbZ tks iqfyl lkekU; drZO;ks ds fuoZgu ds vUrZxr gS A ;kph ds izR;kosnu es of.kZr leLr dk;Z mldh M;wVh ds lkekU; drZO;ks ds fuoZgu ds vUrZxr vkrs gS] tks fdlh Hkh rjg ds vnE;] vktex< ,oa iqfyl egkfujh{kd] okjk.klh tksu us Hkh iqfyl v/kh{kd] em dh vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr u fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr ls lger gksrs gq, ;kph dks izksUufr dh laLrqfr ughaa dh gS A mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ks dh leh{kk ds mijkUr eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igWqpk gwW fd ;kph 'kklukns'k fnukafdr 3&2&94 ,oa foHkkxh; funsZ'kks ds vUrZxr vkmV vkWQ VuZ izksUufr ikus dk ik= ugha gSA bl lEcU/k es mldk izR;kosnu lkjghu gS A vr% ;kph dk izR;kosnu fnukad 4&3&2001 vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA g0 vLi"V ¼vkj0 ds0 iafMr½ iqfyl egkfuns'kd] mRrj iznss'k A 12. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner has not shown any extraordinary courage and bravery or special role in arresting the criminals and in recovering the illegal arms and ammunitions from them, rather the criminals were arrested on account of joint efforts of police squad constituted for the purpose. Even from Anenxure-2 relied upon by the petitioner it is apparent that there is no whisper on any extraordinary courage or exemplary bravery shown by the petitioner by throwing his life in danger of imminent death. All acts done by him were in terms of his duty which all police personnels are supposed to do. 13. The petitioner has not been found an example for other police officers rather the success was of the squad working together. 14. All acts done by him were in terms of his duty which all police personnels are supposed to do. 13. The petitioner has not been found an example for other police officers rather the success was of the squad working together. 14. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, hence it is not a case which requires interference by this Court. 15. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.