JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioners have approached this Court requesting therein that they are also entitled for being accorded out-of-turn promotion on the basis of the act of bravery performed by them in the incident dated 11.5.2001. 2. Brief facts giving rise to instant writ petition is that on 11.5.2001 police received information that renowned criminal were hiding in this background raid was conducted and in order to nab them Station House Officer Jitendra Kumar Singh divided police team into three parties namely (a) First Party headed by S.H.O. Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh alongwith Constable Naresh Singh, Constable Brij Pal Singh and Constable Madan Singh, (b) Second Party headed by S.I. Sri Alok Singh alongwith Constable Satya Narain Dahiya, Constable Kiran Pal Singh and Constable Om Pal Singh, (c) Third Party headed by S.I. Yashvir Singh Malik alongwith Constable Sunil Kumar, Constable Sukhram and Constable Yatindera Singh. Accused persons were asked to surrender by S.H.O. Jitendra Kumar Singh but instead of surrendering accused came out and opened fire on Alok Singh S.I. and thereafter he was killed and one accused ran away. Award of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) was distributed to the members of the police team who have participated in the said operation. Magisterial inquiry was got conducted in the matter and Magistrate concerned submitted its report on 17.7.2001 mentioning therein that in the said encounter which took place miscreant fired on police force and Alok Singh S.I. and Constable who were nearer to the miscreant narrowly escaped and therein it was also mentioned that each and every police officer who have participated have showed exemplary courage. For the purpose of according out-of-turn promotion recommendation was made qua second party comprising S.I. Sri Alok Singh alongwith Constable Satya Narain Dahiya, Constable Kiran Pal Singh and Constable Om Pal Singh by the Senior Superintendent of Police. After the said recommendation was made Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut also made recommendation and same was thereafter forwarded by the Inspector General of Police before the Committee constituted for considering the matter for providing out-of-turn promotion. Said Committee on 22.2.2002 made recommendation for according out-of-turn promotion to S.I. Sri Alok Singh alongwith Constable Satya Naran Dahiya, Constable Kiran Pal Singh and Constable Om Pal Singh. Said Committee on 22.2.2002 made recommendation for according out-of-turn promotion to S.I. Sri Alok Singh alongwith Constable Satya Naran Dahiya, Constable Kiran Pal Singh and Constable Om Pal Singh. Petitioners submit that they have also showed exemplary courage and their claim be also liable to consider for according out-of-turn promotion as their role in the entire incident played is equal and no less inferior to the role performed by S.I. Sri Alok Singh alongwith Constable Satya Naran Dahiya, Constable Kiran Pal Singh and Constable Om Pal Singh. 3. Supplementary affidavit, counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit have been filed and apart from this record on the basis of which member of second party have been accorded out-of-turn promotion has also been produced and thereafter with the consent of the parties present writ petition is being heard and finally decided. 4. Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case petitioner had also shown exemplary courage and their act also constituted act of bravery and they have discriminated in the matter of according out-of-turn promotion and their claim is also liable to be adverted to, as such writ petition is liable to be allowed. 5. From the side of the respondents learned Standing Counsel Sri S.C. Srivastava, contended with vehemence that incumbents who have been accorded out of turn promotion their case is clearly distinguishable and none of the vested right of the petitioner has been infringed in the present case, as such writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is liable to be dismissed. 6. After respective arguments have been advanced the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 and the view point of this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of according out-of-turn promotion is being adverted to. 7. For according out-of-turn promotion, provision has been incorporated by means of Government Order dated 3.2.1994 to give incentive to such police personnels who have shown exemplary courage and bravery with the view to recognize the gallantry on the part of the said Police Officers so that said police personnels are seen as exemplary for their fellow men. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. v. G. Jaya Prasad Rao and others, 2007 AIR SCW 2030 qua similar provision has taken the view that purpose of introducing said provision is laudable one and no body can take exception to this. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. v. G. Jaya Prasad Rao and others, 2007 AIR SCW 2030 qua similar provision has taken the view that purpose of introducing said provision is laudable one and no body can take exception to this. These persons who are prepared to volunteer and take more risk in life and prefer to face hazardous duties, such kind of persons stand on different footing and form separate class qua incumbents who are not prepared to take risk in their life and want to continue with their normal police duties and seek promotions in due course of time. Paragraphs 17 and18 of the said judgment is being extracted below : “17. Now coming to the question whether this amendment of the rules and insertion of Note 2 in Rule 3 as well as proviso to Rule 6 could be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It may be said at the outset that these rules were amended looking to the dire need of the State in order to give some Incentive to the Police Officers for voluntarily coming forward to meet the menace of extremist operations. The purpose is laudable one and nobody can take exception to this. In order to provide this incentive service Rules had to be amended. Those persons who are prepared to volunteer and take more risk in life why such kind of persons should not stand to gain as against those persons who do not want to take risk in their life. As a matter of fact those who take risk in their life and prefer to face hazardous duties, such kind of persons forms a class and such class of persons stands differentiated from other class of persons who are not prepared to take risk in their life and want to continue with the normal police duties and seek their promotion in due course of time. It is true that the Inspectors of Police from one category but in the same category it can have two classes. One who is desirous of taking risk in their life and do service to the society by taking hazardous assignment as against other persons who want to continue with their usual police duties. It is true that the Inspectors of Police from one category but in the same category it can have two classes. One who is desirous of taking risk in their life and do service to the society by taking hazardous assignment as against other persons who want to continue with their usual police duties. Such classification cannot be looked down as arbitrary or vtolative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The classification is apparent which can be differentiated from the class of persons who are prepared to sacrifice their life as against the persons who want to do the routine policing duties. This cannot be said to be fortuitous classification. The classification is based on rational principle. Thus, the object which is sought to be achieved in the present case is to meet the challenge of the naxals and to invite youth and courageous persons to accept this challenge. It is true that some may get an opportunity to serve and some may not but that is exigencies of service. Wooden equality is not possible. Similarly placed person cannot be treated dissimilarly. But that is not the case here. 18. We have already highlighted above the scheme/guidelines issued under the Rules by the State Government. The guidelines are properly insulated against arbitrariness or discrimination. Principally four guidelines have been laid down, namely that a person who becomes eligible for accelerated promotion should be an approved probationer and he has performed outstanding work in the field of anti-extremist operations (here the quality of work turned out shall be taken as criteria); has uniformly satisfactory record and lastly, clean defaulter sheet for the last six years without any major punishments throughout the service. These factors are sufficient guidelines where any individual action can be tested. At one point of time, Mr. Verma learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the proviso to Rule 6 which dispenses with the minimum period of service would operate as arbitrary and it will give rise to picking and choosing. These factors are sufficient guidelines where any individual action can be tested. At one point of time, Mr. Verma learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the proviso to Rule 6 which dispenses with the minimum period of service would operate as arbitrary and it will give rise to picking and choosing. But one of the guidelines clearly lays down that a person should have at least last six years very good annual confidential roll meaning thereby that he should have at least put in six years of service though under proviso to Rule 6 the minimum period of service for promotion has been dispensed with but nonetheless in the guidelines it has seen clearly laid down that a person should have very good ACR for the last six years. That means though the rule provides that there is no necessity of minimum period of service yet in the guidelines criteria has been laid down that a person should have at least six years clean service record. Not only this, in order to promote a person on accelerated promotion the recommendations by the Unit Officers are filtered at various stages. After receipt of such recommendations it will go to the Committee of high ranking police officers and in that his performance in extremist area will be examined by the high power committee headed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police and proper investigation will be done by the Intelligence Branch and they will examine the detailed performance of the incumbents as to how he has performed proper investigation is to be done by the Intelligence Branch who are monitoring anti-extremist operation in the State. After proper scrutiny the matter will be placed before a still higher committee headed by the Chief Secretary with Home Secretary and Director General of Police. Therefore, in order to consider the case of accelerated promotion the matter has to be examined at various channels, first at the Unit head, thereafter a Committee constituted by the Police Department and then a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to the State Government at the State level and after his prolonged examination a person will be eligible for accelerated promotion. Therefore, these guidelines have been made in order to check and there should not be any arbitrary promotion and there should not be any picking and choosing among the persons belonging to the same category. At one point of time, impression was sought to be created that there are no guidelines for giving such accelerated promotion but after going through the detailed G.O.Ms. No. 280 dated 17.9.2002 as discussed above, we are satisfied that there are sufficient guidelines which check the arbitrary picking and choosing of the persons of accelerated promotion. After going through these guidelines we are of opinion that there is least possibility of picking and choosing of the persons under accelerated promotion scheme." 9. This Court in the case of Ashok Rana v. Home Secretary U.P. and others, 2000 (4) AWC 2889 , has taken the view that when each one in the hierarchy had lavished praise for his exemplary courage, and bravery in gunning down the dreaded dacoit putting in jeopardy his own life, then there was no reason to disregard the said material on record. The power is subjectively formulated but objective consideration of valid material must be made as to whether petitioners are entitled to be given out-of-turn promotion or not and same cannot be causally ignored. Relevant paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted below : "3. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 17.11.1997, it would transpire that it assigns no reason as to why the petitioner, upon whom each one in the hierarchy had lavished paraise for his exemplary courage, and bravery in gunning down the dreaded dacoit putting in jeopardy his own life, as stated in the report of the Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur, was not appraised to be an act of exemplary courage and gallantry within the parameters laid down by the Government It is worth noticing here that even the Director General of Police by his letter dated August 29, 1998, had made recommendations to the State Government for award of Police medal to the petitioner for his exemplary courage and bravery for the incident at village Dalelganj at the house of Virendra Tripathi, Paradhan of the village with the circle of P.S. Shamshabad in which an encounter with 5 or 6 dacoits took place. The reports of the sponsoring authorities constituted valid material for the formation of opinion as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be given out-of-turn promotion and were not liable to be ignored sans any rhyme or reason. The grant of power to give out-of-turn promotion to a police officer is no doubt subjectively formulated but the decision of the Committee one way or the other must be based on objective consideration of valid materials such as the reports/recommendations made by the S.S.P/D.I.G/I.G. (P). I find no valid reason justifying the order impugned herein passed in disregard of valid materials on record.” 10. In the case of Sushil Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (2) AWC 1372 this Court took the view that in the matter of grant of out-of-tum promotion for displaying exemplary courage, bravery and gallantry in performance of duties discrimination is not warranted and for ensuring fairness and equitable treatment case of the petitioner needed reconsideration. Relevant paragraph-8 of the said judgment is being quoted below : "8. In the present case, the stand taken by the petitioner is that he has been discriminated in the matter of out of turn promotion by not considering his case at all, and in any case, he has been denied equal treatment has been extended to other Sub-Inspectors. As said above, there were 31 members who formed different parties to combat the menace of the dreaded notorious criminal Alya alias Ali Mohd alias Pappu Pahalwan who had extended his criminal activities in different States. Out of them the names of eight persons (four Sub-Inspector) were initially recommended for out-of-turn promotion. The petitioner was one of them. The recommendation was turned down obviously on the ground that it was a group action and individual specific role was not discernible. On subsequent recommendation was confined to give persons only, namely, three Sub-Inspectors of Police and two Constables and it was at this stage that the name of the petitioner came to be omitted. Sri Ashok Khare took pains to point out, that in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors, Jitendra Kumar Singh has been granted out-of-turn promotion and since the case of the present petitioner was on the same footing as that of Jitendra Kumar Singh, he cannot be denied promotion on any perceivable ground. Sri Ashok Khare took pains to point out, that in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors, Jitendra Kumar Singh has been granted out-of-turn promotion and since the case of the present petitioner was on the same footing as that of Jitendra Kumar Singh, he cannot be denied promotion on any perceivable ground. This submission is founded on ‘the basis that though the two Sub-Inspectors-Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi and Ashok Kumar Varma have received bullet injuries as a result of the cross firing, the present petitioner as well as Jitendra Kumar Singh did not receive any injury. It was maintained that if Jitendra Kumar Singh could be granted promotion. Why not petitioner ? Call of equable treatment was made. It was also urged that the petitioner is entitled for promotion in view of the decision of this Court in Ashok Rana v. Home Secretary U.P. and others, 2000 (4) ESC 2713 (All). I have thoroughly studied the said decision and find that the observations made therein do not squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the question is whether the case of the petitioner can be distinguished from that of Jitendra Kumar Singh, who has been granted out of turn promotion. The report of the Committee which was ultimately accepted by the Director General of Police does not indicate that the case of the petitioner was ever considered. His case had been recommended at all the stages. Things would have been different if the case of the petitioner had been considered and then rejected on the ground of the specific role played by him. It is quite possible that on account of positioning of the petitioner at the time of the raid, his role may have been negligible or otherwise beyond the ambit of the expression exemplary courage and bravery. It on the ground of parity only, promotion is granted to the petitioner, the remaining 25 persons would spring up to claim out-of-turn promotion. Granting of promotion to all would frustrate the very purpose for which Government order for out-of-turn promotion has been issued. The Government order cannot be reduced to a farce and cannot be reduced to a farce and cannot be banked upon for normal promotion”. 11. Granting of promotion to all would frustrate the very purpose for which Government order for out-of-turn promotion has been issued. The Government order cannot be reduced to a farce and cannot be reduced to a farce and cannot be banked upon for normal promotion”. 11. Thereafter in the case of Pooran Singh Mehra v. State of U.P. and another, 2002(4) ESC 450 (All) this Court took the view that exemplary courage and bravery by an incumbent has to be taken into cumulatively taking the role of others which was successfully concluded in the entire operation. In the said judgment it was mentioned that same does not require in any law to exhibit extraordinary courage and bravery only to die in the episode. What required is the scant respect for life during the episode and operation and enthusiastic desire, willingness to maintain the courage for involving in the operation of encounter keeping one’s life at stake without caring the injuries being sustained. Circular dated 3.2.1994 is to encourage and to improve the self-confidence of the police personnel who are alive and have saved their life from danger and such award in the form of out-of-turn promotion is not as posthumous award. In the said judgment also ground of discrimination has not been approved. Relevant paragraph-14 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted below : “14. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. I find that the petitioner without caring for his life and injuries which had been sustained by him during the course of said operation and encounter on vital parts of the body had continued to join the operation completely overlooking threat and imminent danger to his life which had faced by the bullet injuries of the notorious gangsters. If such activity does not amount ‘extraordinary courage. In any manner, it cannot be said that the episode and operation was not serious, more so when it lasted for eight hours during which there were continuous firing from both the sides in presence of senior police officers and life of every participant specifically the petitioner was in peril. If such activity does not amount ‘extraordinary courage. In any manner, it cannot be said that the episode and operation was not serious, more so when it lasted for eight hours during which there were continuous firing from both the sides in presence of senior police officers and life of every participant specifically the petitioner was in peril. The Magisterial enquiry concerned for the episode have also indicated to the District Magistrate which consequently brought to the notice of the State Government which clearly demonstrated that the entire episode was extremely serious one in which notorious gangsters succumbed to the bullets of the police personnel which again shows the exemplary courage and bravery by the petitioner cumulatively talking the role of others which was successfully concluded, does not require any law to exhibit extraordinary courage and bravery only to die in the episode. What required is the scant respect for life during the episode and operation and enthusiastic desire, willingness to maintain the courage for involving in the operation of encounter keeping one’s life at stake without caring the injuries being sustained. Circular dated 3.2.1994 is to encourage and to improve the self-confidence of the police personnel who are alive and have saved their life from danger and such award in the form of out-of-turn promotion is not as posthumous award. The committee has carelessly and in a casual manner considered the case of petitioner and has not bothered to evaluate the role of the petitioner and putting an extra irrelevant word ‘danger to life’ for granting out-of-turn promotion specifically shows non-application of mind on the part of the committee. The Committee has not analysed the episode in true perspective and his not recorded any reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In absence of any parameter or any guideline provided for or in absence of any specific meaning prescribed for the word used ‘exemplary courage and bravery in the Government Order for granting out-of-turn promotion, the decision of the committee’s order dated 17.11.1997, passed by a non-speaking order for lack of proper elaboration cannot legally sustain, on the ground of discrimination and arbitrariness.” 12. Said judgment has been reaffirmed in the case of Prathivi Raj Chauhan and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(4) ADJ 217 (All) : 2006(2) ESC 1494 . Said judgment has been reaffirmed in the case of Prathivi Raj Chauhan and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(4) ADJ 217 (All) : 2006(2) ESC 1494 . In the said case observation has been mentioned that conduct of the petitioner during the encounter was in any way inferior to the other and thus, discrimination without any ground cannot be allowed and petitioner would also be entitled for out-of-turn promotion under the Government Order dated 3.2.1994. Relevant paragraph-7 is being extracted below : “7. From the record available before the Court, there is only one citation which considers the entire encounter and fixes the different role played by different police personnel and that is the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The name of the petitioner has been placed at serial No. 1 of the recommendation where it is mentioned that the petitioner gunned down two gangster and was associated in gunning down a third gangster. In the case of Pooran Singh Mehra and Indra Singh Malik, it states that they helped in gunning down one gangster even though they were hurt during the encounter. The contention of the petitioner is correct and there is absolutely no reasons shown either in the order dated 17.11.1997 or in the promotion order of Pooran Singh Mehra or in the counter-affidavit why the claim has been rejected in spite of the citation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. It is apparent from the citation the petitioner was involved since the very first part of the encounter which engaged the gangster since 5.00 a.m. in the morning and he eliminated one of the gangster on the very first assault. He was then detailed with another Constable and Head Constable to take fresh position when the criminals changed their position and he kept them engaged in the gun battle to enable fresh re-enforcement to arrive at about 7.30 a.m. This re-enforement consisted also of S.I. Pooran Singh Mehra. The petitioner again gunned down another gangster on subsequent assault and thereafter the petitioner, S.I. Pooran Singh Mehra and others jointly gunned down one more criminal. No doubt, S.I. Pooran Singh Mehra was injured, but merely because he was injured, that by itself cannot be a ground to deny promotion to the petitioner. From the citation, it is evident that the petitioner took foremost position during the encounter. No doubt, S.I. Pooran Singh Mehra was injured, but merely because he was injured, that by itself cannot be a ground to deny promotion to the petitioner. From the citation, it is evident that the petitioner took foremost position during the encounter. Further, copy of the injury report, which is annexed, shows that the injury to Pooran Singh Mehra and Indra Singh Malik was superficial and the two were discharged within 24 hours from the hospital. If the conduct of SI Pooran Singh Mehra and Head Constable Indra Singh Malik, they ought to have granted promotion to the petitioner also. As already stated hereinabove, there is absolutely nothing to show that the conduct of the petitioner during the encounter was in any way inferior to the other two and thus discrimination without any ground cannot be allowed and the petitioner would also be entitled for out-of-turn promotion under the Government Order dated 3.2.1994." 13. On the basis of dictum of law laid down from time to time it is clear that object of providing out-of-turn promotion is to improve the self-confidence of the police personnel who are alive and took risk of their life in dangerous situation. Such award in the form of out-of-turn promotion is accorded so that such police personnels set example to the fellow police personnels. In the matter of according out-of-turn promotion transparency is to be maintained and discrimination is not at all permissible and decision has to be taken objectively, on the basis of material available on record. In respect of particular incident matter has to be examined first by the sponsoring authority and then by the various officers at higher level. Sponsoring authority at the time of making recommendation for according out-of-turn promotion has to consider the case of each and every incumbent who have participated in the operation in question and role played by each and every incumbent and their respective contribution in the operation being carried out successfully and the fact that element of bravery and exemplary courage was present there. In case in respect of said incident recommendation is being made qua some of the incumbent or incumbents then at the said juncture qua the incumbents in whose favour recommendation has been made and the role played by other incumbents has to be kept in mind. In case in respect of said incident recommendation is being made qua some of the incumbent or incumbents then at the said juncture qua the incumbents in whose favour recommendation has been made and the role played by other incumbents has to be kept in mind. In case role played by them is in no way inferior or is at par then discrimination shall not be practised as said recommendation will ensure equal treatment. 14. On the touch stone of the principle enunciated above taking the case in hand, in the present case this fact has not been disputed that petitioners had participated in the incident in question dated 11.5.2001. In the letter dated 13.5.2001 written by Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut in paragraph-2 it has been mentioned that those police personnels who have shown exemplary courage qua them the Chief Minister has assured for according out of turn promotion, as such proposal be got prepared and sent. In the report which has been submitted by the Magistrate concerned dated 17.7.2001 general recommendation has been made in respect of each and every police personnel who have participated in the aforesaid incident of having shown bravery and exemplary courage. At the point of time when recommendation has been made same has been made only in favour of second party comprising S.I. Sri Alok Singh alongwith Constable Satya Naran Dahiya, Constable Kiran Pal Singh and Constable Om Pal Singh. It has been mentioned that at the point of time when miscreants were challenged then they came out and started firing on the second party on account of which S.I. Alok Singh was saved and both miscreants run towards East-South direction and police personnels fired in self defence then one miscreant was injured and he fell down and second miscreant run away taking shelter of darkness. In the present case order dated 22.2.2002 which is recommendation made by the Committee for according out-of-turn promotion, mentions in paragraph-4 that incumbent in whose favour recommendation has been made showed extraordinary exemplary courage but in what way and manner petitioners claim were inferior to aforesaid incumbents has not at all been discussed. Petitioners are alleging that their role are identical to the role of the incumbents who have been accorded out of turn promotion. In this regard much reliance has been sought to be placed on the site plan. Petitioners are alleging that their role are identical to the role of the incumbents who have been accorded out of turn promotion. In this regard much reliance has been sought to be placed on the site plan. As to whether role of the petitioners is identical to the role of incumbents who have participated in the aforesaid operation and have been awarded out-of-turn promotion is essentially question of fact which can be very well examined by the authority concerned and not by this Court. 15. In the present case at no point of time Sponsoring authority and other superior authority in their wisdom referred the case of the petitioners also for being accorded out-of-turn promotion. 16. Here also plea of discrimination has been alleged as such ends of justice would be more served in case claim of the petitioner is also considered in the light of the role played by them in the said operation vis-a-vis incumbents who have been accorded out-of-turn promotion. 17. Consequently liberty is given to the petitioners to represent their claim within one month from the date of delivery of judgment alongwith certified copy of this order before Director General of Police, U.P. Police Headquarter, Lucknow, respondent No. 2 who shall consider the claim of the petitioners also and take late decision on the question as to what way and manner claim of the petitioners in any way distinguishable qua the claim of S.I. Sri Alok Singh alongwith Constable Satya Naran Dahiya, Constable Kiran Pal Singh and Constable Om Pal Singh. Said decision be taken within next three months from the date of claim. 18. With the above observations, and direction present writ petition is disposed of. ————