JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.12.2004 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition ). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion to the rank of Inspector on the basis of recommendation made by the Inspector General of Police Allahabad Zone, Allahabad dated 6.7.2002 and recommendations of the Superintendent of Police ,City Allahabad dated 4.1.2002, Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Range, Allahabad dated 19.6.2002. 2. Petitioner on the basis of advertisement in the year 1987-88, appeared in the examination for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector. The petitioner was not sent for training, as such, the petitioner and another similarly situated persons filed a Writ Petition No. 18930 of 1989 and the writ petition was allowed on 15.3.1991 and this Honble Court had directed that remaining 39 vacancies for the sessions 1987-88 shall be filled up from the remaining candidate of the select list. Petitioner completed the training and was given appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1994. 3. Petitioner submits that according to Para 403 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation, the appointment to the rank of Inspector are being made by the Deputy Inspector General by promotion on post of Sub Inspector on the basis of recommendation of Inspector General of Police (Establishment). The State Government had issued a Government Order on 3.2.1994 for providing out of turn promotion to the Sub-Inspectors of Civil Police to rank of Inspectors of Civil Police for their outstanding performance. Subsequently, procedure has been provided in another Government Order dated 10.2.1994 in continuation of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994. 4. Petitioner was posted as Station Officer of Police Station Attarsuiya, District Allahabad and during this period, the petitioner gundown harden criminal namely Samer Bahadur Singh alias Sajju Kana and an award to that effect was given to the petitioner. During that period the petitioner has done various outstanding performance and on that basis the authorities who are empowered under the Government Order has recommended the claim of the petitioner. During that period the petitioner has done various outstanding performance and on that basis the authorities who are empowered under the Government Order has recommended the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has also annexed the copy of achievements which he has performed during this period are being reproduced below : ^^mi fu- uk0iq0 mesk pUnz ik.Ms; }kjk fd;s x;s dk;ksZ dk laf{kIr fooj.k tuin bykgkckn dze- eq0v0la0 /kkjk Fkkuk dk;Z fooj.k la0 1- 330@99 395]397 flfoy jk.kk ToSylZ dk inkZQkk djrs gq, dq[;kr Hkk-n-fo- ykbu vfHk;qDr jktsk flag mQZ nsosUnz flag mQZ xCcj flag iq= jkeiky flag vkfn 9 vfHk;qDrksa dks vFkd iz;kl o ifjJe djus ds ckn fxjQ~rkj fd;k ftlls fot; xSl lfoZl ds ekfyd ds ?kj esa fnu ngkMs MdSrh ,oa flfoy ykbUl esa ,u0Mh0 JhokLro bathfu;j ds ;gka ywV dh ?kVuk ,oa eksrhyky usg: bathfu;fjax dkyst esa fnu ngkM+s ccyw flag dh luluh[kst gR;k o gR;k esa iz;qDr fiLVy 30 cksj dh cjkenxh o 10]28]000&00 dh lEifRr dh cjkenxh esa dkQh ;ksxnkuA 2- 227@99 41@411 dhMxat kkfrj okgu pksj ekschu vgen tuin Hkk-n-fo- izrkix<+ o fj;kt vgen tuin izrkix<+ dks cM+h esgur ls fxjQ~rkj fd;k o 3 VkVk lweks ,d ek:fr dkj ,d fQ;sV dh cjkenxh dhA 3- 593 ls 307 dhMxat kkfrj fdLe dk vijk/kh gfjvkse lkgq 595@99 Hkk-n-fo- fuoklh e/kqokiqj bykgkckn dks iqfyl 25 vk0 eqBHksaM esa cM+s gh lkgl o /kS;Z dk ifjp; ,DV 4@5 nsrs gq, ekj fxjk;kA reUpk Hkkjh ek=k esa EXP ,DV ftUnk o [kks[kk dkjrwl rFkk ce cjken gqvkA 4- 647 ls 18@20 dhMxat kkfrj fdEl ds tgj [kqjkuksa dh xSax dk 652@99 NDPS ijnkQkk djrs gq, xSax ds 6v vfHk;qDrks ,DV fuy@ ds lkFk fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k bl xSax dk 99 41@ eq[; dk;Z vke turk dks izlkn ds :i esa 411 ykjtksi ls fefJr izlkn f[kykdj ywVuk FkkA dkQh ek=k esa lwVdsl] ywVs x;s lkeku Hkk-n-fo- rFkk ykjikst ls cuk yM~Mw ,d ,EcslMj dkj cjken gqbZA 5- 144& 307 kkgxat kkfrj fdLe dk MdSr uUgsa flag fuoklh 145@99 Hkk-n-fo- HkqtSgjk] fetkZiqj dks gqbZ iqfyl eqBHksaM esa 35 vkElZ ekj fxjk;k x;kA blds ikl ls ,d reUpk ,DV o Hkkjh ek=k esa ftUnk o [kks[kk dkjrwl cjken gqvkA 6- 91]92@ 307 dSaV kkfrj fdLe dk ywVsjk@ gR;kjk lqkkhy 2000 Hkk-n-fo- mQZ uUpw dks iqfyl eqBHksM+ esa ekj fxjk;k 25 vkElZ x;kA blds ikl ls ,d reUpk o Hkkjh ,DV ek=k esa ftUnk o [kks[kk dkjrwl cjken gqvkA 7- 201 ls 399]402 dhMxat vfHk;qDr lkfcj vyh vius lkfFk;ksa ds 208@ Hkk-n-fo- lkFk jkeckx jsyos LVsku ls fyPNoh 2000 25 vkElZ ,Dlizsl V~su esa ywVikV dh ;kstuk cukrs ,DV ,e0 le; fxjQ~rkjA blds ikl ls 6 reUpk] Ogh0 ,0 2 ce rFkk Hkkjh ek=k esa ftUnk dkjrwl 4@5 EXP cjken gqvkA ,DV 8- 70]71] 307 vrjlqb;k dq[;kr vijk/kh isksoj gR;kjk lej cgknqj 72@ Hkk-n-fo- mQZ lTtw dkuk tks m0iz0bukeh vijkf/k;ksa 2000 25 vkElZ dh lwph ds la[;k 72 ij 5000 :0 dk ,DV ,e- bukeh ?kksf"kr Fkk] iqfyl eqBHksaM esa ekj Ogh-,0 fxjk;k x;kA blds ikl ls ,d reUpk o Hkkjh ek=k esa ftUnk o [kks[kk dkjrwl ,d ghjks LiysaMj eksVj lkbZfdy cjken gqvkA 9- 82]83@ 307 vrjlqb;k kkfrj okgu pksj vker vyh mQZ ccyw 2000 Hkk-n-fo- olh dh nkSjku eqBHksM fxjQ~rkjh ij dM+kbZ 25 vkElZ ls iwNrkN djus ij Lo;a rFkk vius ,DV fuy@ lkfFk;ksa }kjk kgj rFkk vU; tuin ls 2000 41@ nksifg;k okgu pqjkuk budk iskk FkkA 411 Hkk-n-fo- cM+h esgur ls budh fxjQ~rkjh dh x;h rFkk buds }kjk crk;s x;s buds lkfFk;ksa dks Hkh fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA rFkk blds dCts ls 16 nqifg;k okgu cjken fd;s x;sA 10- 86@2000 5@25 vk-,- vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr eV: tks vos/k kL=ksa dks cukus dk dk;Z djuk rFkk kgj esa mudks cspuk dh fxjQ~rkjh dh x;h mlds ikl ls kL= cukus ds lHkh QSDV~h esM midj.k rFkk 12 reUpk 12 cksj] 4 reUpk 315 cksj ds cjkcn gq, 11- 90 ls 22 NDPS vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr pqUuq yky jk/ks o jesk ;kno 92@2000 ,DV 60 buds vU; lkfFk;ksz ds fxjQ~rkjh rFkk EXT ,DV dCts ls uktk;t xktk o Hkkax dh Hkkjh ek=k esa cjkenxh dh x;hA dCts ls 315 cksj dh NksVh lh jk;Qy] ghjks gks.Mk rFkk Hkkjh ek=k esa ftUnk o [kks[kk dkjrwl cjken fd;k x;kA 12- 659 307@34 vrjlqb;k nkmn bczkfge@NksVk kdhy vUMjoYMZ 660@2000 Hkk-n-fo- ekfQ;k fxjksg dk lfdz; lnL; tkosn 25 vk0,DV bdcky mQZ tkosn eksckby fuoklh izrkix<+ dks iqfyl eqBHksaM esa ekj fxjk;k x;kA dCts ls 315 cksj dh NksVh lh jk;Qy] ghjks gks.Mk rFkk Hkkjh ek=k esa ftUnk o [kks[kk dkjrwl cjken fd;k x;kA 13- 215@2000 41@411 vrjlqb;k vUrjkZTth; okgu pksj kksHkukFk frokjh Hkk-n-fo- tuin jhok e0iz0 o buds vU; lkfFka;ksa dh fxjQ~rkjh rFkk muds dCts ls 11 thi 1 ekkZy] ,d ek:fr oSu cjken dh x;hA 14- 86@2000 5@25 vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr vjkn dks fxjQ~rkj djds mlds vk0,DV dCts ls 10 reUpk 12 cksj] 5 reUpk 315 cksj o dkjrwl cjken fd;k x;kA 15- 1@01 468]469]485] vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr ulhe vkfn dks fxjQ~rkj djds 486]467]468] udyh tkQjkuh Hkksyk tnkZ] chMh o yky 420 Hkk-n-fo- nUr eatu Hkkjh ek=k esa jSij rFkk bUgs cukus dk midj.k vkfn cjken fd;k x;kA 16- 59 ls 307 Hkk-n-fo- vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr dks cgqr gh lkgfld eqBHksaM esa 62@01 25 vkElZ xusk flag] ,tkt] rethn vkfn dks ,DV fxjQ~rkj djds muds dCts ls Hkkjh esa fonskh kL=] ,d 38 cksj dk fjokYpj 22 dh fiLVy] 1 fjfiVj cUnwd 5 xksyh okyh ,l0ch0ch0,y0 xu o 40 dkjrwl cjken dh x;hA rFkk lsuk ls pqjk;h x;h ,l0,y0vkj0 dh cjkenxh dh x;hA 17- 87@01 16@18@20 vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr lqjsk vkfn ds ?kj ls cM+h ca/kqvk Jfed esgur ,oa lqjkxjlh djds rfeyukMq ds izFkk mUewyu jgus okys 16 cPpksa dks buds dCts ls eqDr 1976 djkdj muds ;FkkLFkku Hkstok;k x;kA 18- 43@01 307 Hkk-n-fo- vrjlqb;k bukeh vfHk;qDr jktfdkksj ij 2500@& 25 vkElZ ,DV] dk buke ?kksf"kr Fkk] dks fxjQ~rkj djds 41@411 mlds ikl ls pksjh dh lqtqdh eksVj Hkk-n-fo- lkbfdy ,d 315 cksj dk reUpk o dkjrwl 44@2001 cjken fd;k x;kA fuy 2001 19- 63@01 5@25 vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr t;jke eYykg o kehe dks vk0 ,DV - fxjQ~rkj djds muds ikl ls 6 reUpk 12 cksj] Hkkjh ek=k esa v/kZfufeZr reUpk] dkjrwl rFkk reUpk cukus dk midj.k cjken fd;k x;kA 20- 108@01 41@411 vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr lanhi flag] xq:pju] thryky] Hkk-n-fo- ukfte dks fxjQ~rkj djds muds ikl ls pksjh dh 1 ,lIysaMj] 2 ;kekgk] 3 lqtqdh] 1 ghjks gks.Mk ¼dqy lkr okgu½ cjken fd;k x;ka 21- 111]112] 60@72 vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr lUpw o nhid ljnkj dks fxjQ~rkj 113@01 fd;k x;kA muds dCts ls 2 ek:fr dkj rFkk 27 isVh nk: tks fd e/;iznsk dh Fkh cjken fd;k x;kA 22- 126@01 302 Hkk-n-fo- vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr Jherh esudk flag }kjk vius 120 ch 34 izseh ds lkFk feydj vius ifr ohjsUnz flag Hkk-n-fo- dh gR;k vius gh ?kj esa djok nh bl ?kVuk dk vukoj.k cgqr gh esgur ds lkFk fd;k x;kA gR;k esa iz;qDr gkdh] pkdw] buds ikl ls cjken fd;k x;kA 23- 146@01 20 NDPS vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr nhisUnz t;loky dks cM+h gh ,DV esgur ,oa foosdiw.kZ rjhds ls fxjQ~rkj djds buds dCts ls 1 VkVk lweks o 6 dqUVy 70 fdyksxzke xkatk cjken fd;k x;k 1 dqUry 20 fdyksxzke xa/kd esaku 24- 194] 195] 3]4]5 Exp vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr cyjke] fnusk dskjokuh] jru 196@01 Act pUnz dskjokuh vkfn dks fxjQ~rkj djds buds dCts ls 1 dqUry 20 fdyksxzke xa/kd esaku] iksVkk vkfn cjken fd;k x;kA 25- 284@01 41@411] vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr jktdqekj vkfn dks fxjQ~rkj 467]471] djds buds dCts ls VkVk lweksa] ekkZy] 420 Hkk-n-fo- ek:fr dkj] ek:fr oSu ¼dqy 15½ okgu cjken fd;k x;kA 26- 297]298@ 5@25 vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr HkksykukFk vkfn dks fxjQ~rkj 01 vkElZ ,DV djds buds dCts ls 12 vnn reUpk 12 cksj] dkjrwl rFkk reUpk cukus dk midj.k cjken fd;k x;kA 27- 45@02 25 vkElZ ,DV vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr vfuy dqekj dks fxjQ~rkj djds buds dCts ls 2 vnn ,l0ch0ch0,y xu cjken fd;k x;kA 28- 48@02 41@411 vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr eqerkt ds dCts ls pksjh ds 2 Hkk-n-fo- vnn V~d cjken fd;k x;kA 29- 70@02 41@411] vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr v:.k dqekj nwcs ,oa d;we dks 467] 468] fxjQ~rkj djds buds dCts ls 4 vnn 420 Hkk-n-fo- eksVj lkbZfdy cjken fd;k x;kA 30- 121] 122] 307 Hkk-n-fo- dhMxat vfHk;qDr vejiky] lqHkk"k frokjh fuoklh 123] 124@ 25 vk-,- fetkZiqj] }kjk vlygs dh rLdjh djrs 02 le; idM+k x;k buds ikl sls 1 vnn dkjckbu] 1 vnn 9 ,e ,e dh fiLVy] 8 vnn 6 jkm.M fjokYoj cjken dh x;hA 31- 132 @02 302] 304] vrjlqb;k vfHk;qDr vfuy foodekZ lUrks"k] foodekZ 412 Hkk-n-fo- }kjk iSls ds ykyp esa vkdj lq/kk HkkxZo dh gR;k xyk nckdj u gks ikus ls vkjh ls xyk jsr fn;k x;k buds dCts ls 13 pkanh ds flDds] 1 pwM+h lksus dh rFkk 1 yksgs dh vkjh cjken dh x;hA 32- 82@02 302 Hkk-n-fo- dhMxat vfHk;qDr osn izdkk iVsy] lUrks"k dqekj iVsy dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k bUgksaus jkt dye f}osnh ,oa jktk dh gR;k djds ykk dks Qsad fn;k FkkA bl ?kVuk dk cM+h gh esgur ds lkFk vukoj.k fd;k x;kA 33- 118@02 13 tqvk vf/k- dhMxat cM+h esgur ls 19 tqvkfM+;ksa dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA rFkk buds dCts ls yxHkx 1 yk[k 4 gtkj :i;s dh cjkenxh dh x;hA rFkk vfHk;qDr dks tsy Hkstk x;kA 34- fuy@02 41@411 dhMxat kkfrj fdLe ds pksjksa ¼datj½ Hkhe] lRrh Hkk-n-fo- vkfn ikap Qjkj dks cM+h gh esgur ls fxjQ~rkj djds buds dCts ls yxHkx 90 gtkj ewY; ds pkanh ds tsojkr cjken fd;s x;sA 35- 151 ls 307 Hkk-n-fo- dhMxat cM+h gh esgur ls vfHk;qDr ealwu] jktsk] 154@02 25 vk0 ,DV jktdqekj dks fxjQ~rkj djds buds dCts ls ,d cUnwd nskh] 12 reUpk] 2 fjokYoj cjken fd;k x;kA 36- 188@02 5@25 dhMxat vfHk;qDr cM+dm o x;k izlkn dks reapk vk0,DV cukrs gq;s cM+h gh esgur ls fxjQ~rkj 25 vkElZ djds buds dCts ls lkr reaps cus gq, o ,DV vk/kk ntZu v/kcus reaps rFkk reapk cukus dk midj.k cjken fd;k x;kA 37- 177@02 307 dhMxat kkfrj fdLe dk yqVsjk o isksoj gR;kjk Hkk-n-fo- jkdsk mQZ csch fuoklh Fkkuk dhMxat dks 25 vkElZ ftlds mij 2500@& dk bZuke ?kksf"kr ,DV 18@20 Fkk tks yXHkx 3 lky ls vius dks iqfyl ,u-Mh-ih-,l- fxjQ~r ls ckgj j[ks gq;s Fkk dks cM+s gh ukVdh; fxjQ~rkj dj tsy Hkst fn;k x;kA 38- 7]8@02 25 vkElZ dhMxat vfHk;qDr Kku ;kno vuwi ds dCts ls 3 ,DV reapk 12 cksj cjken rFkk Kku ;kno 2500@& dk iqjLdkj ?kksf"kr vijk/kh fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA 39- 14]15@ 18] 20 dhMxat vfHk;qDr y{e.k fcUn ds dCts ls 1 dqUry 03 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- xkatk o 1 lqtqdh xkM+h cjken dh x;hA ,DV- 40- 125@03 302 @201 dhMxat vfHk;qDr fko ;ke kekZ dks fxjQ~rkj Hkk-n-fo- dj e`rdk kkUrh nsoh dh gR;k dk vukoj.k fd;k x;kA 41- 26@03 13 iz- ,sDV dhMxat Tkxnhk ik.Ms; vkfn 18 vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds dCts ls lkoZtfud LFkku ij tqvk [ksyrs le; idM+s tkus ij 1 yk[k 6 gtkj 5 lkS :i;s cjken fd;k x;kA 42- 35@03 25 vk-,sDV dhMxat vfHk;qDr nsosk feJk ds dCts ls ,d vnn 4@5 bDliks- eLdV jk;Qy cjken fd;k x;kA ,sDV 43- 111@03 25 vk- ,sDV dhMxat vfHk;qDr vkuUn esgrj ds dCts ls vlygk cjken fd;k x;kA rFkk 2 gR;kvksa dk [kqyklk fd;k x;k tks Fkkuk flfoy ykbu ls lacaf/kr FkkA 44- 132 ls 25 vk- ,sDV dhMxat vfHk;qDr lat; flag ,oa mlds lkfFk;ksa 136@03 ds dCts ls ftIlh vlygk rFkk ce cukus ds midj.k cjken fd;k x;k bu vfHk;qDrksa dk ,d cM+k xSax gS tks lqYrkuiqj vesBh] izrkix<+ vkfn esa lfdz; gSA 45- 149@03 9@24@40@ dhMxat vfHk;qDr tSdh vgen vkfn 3 uQj ds 48 50@51 dCts ls ksj phrs dh dqy 7 [kky cjken ou laj{k.k dh x;hA vf/kfu;e 46- 152@03 302 Hkk-n-fo- dhMxat vfHk;qDr iou dqekj dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k A vfHk;qDr vKkr gR;k ds ekeys ls lEcfU/kr FkkA e`rd dh ykk dks tehu esa xkM+ nsuk crk;kA 5. On the basis of the aforesaid outstanding performance of the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion was recommended by the then S.P.Singh, Superintendent of Police, Allahabad which is annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Then the claim of the petitioner was also recommended by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad for awarding out of turn promotion to the petitioner. Regarding the encounter of harden criminal Samar Bahadur Singh alias Sajju Kana, a magisterial enquiry was held and the City Magistrate has also recommended the claim of the petitioner vide its recommendation letter dated 7.2.2004. On that basis, the Deputy Inspector General of Police has also recommended the claim of the petitioner by its recommendation dated 6.7.2002 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). The claim of the petitioner has also been recommended by the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad for giving the petitioner out of turn promotion on the basis of outstanding performance of the petitioner vide its recommendation dated 6.7.2002. 6. Petitioner submits that in spite of the aforesaid recommendations and documents, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide its order dated 18th March, 2005 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). 7. It has been submitted by Sri Satya Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is an order without assigning any reason that under what circumstances the claim of the petitioner is being rejected. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been discriminated as the claim of certain persons for out of turn promotion was rejected and the State Government exercising powers suo moto has promoted those persons out of turn. A list of the same has been annexed with the writ petition. Further submission has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that various persons who were not having outstanding performance, they have been given promotion out of turn. The petitioner has annexed the copy of one Ajay Prakash Srivastava, who has been promoted on the post of Sub-Inspector vide its order dated 17th March, 2004. Further submission has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that various persons who were not having outstanding performance, they have been given promotion out of turn. The petitioner has annexed the copy of one Ajay Prakash Srivastava, who has been promoted on the post of Sub-Inspector vide its order dated 17th March, 2004. Similarly S/Sri Sada Nand Singh, Satyendra Prasad Tiwari, Santosh Kumar Yadav, Yogendra Pal Singh, S.K.S. Pratap, Vinod Singh Sirohi, Aresh Kumar Sharma, Shesh Mani Pathak, Sanjay Sirohi, Sudhir Kumar Tomer and Devendra Kumar have been given promotion out of turn, though if the comparison is made the performance of the petitioner is better than these persons. 8. But in spite of the aforesaid fact and recommendations by the competent authority as provided under the Government Order of 1994 petitioner has not been provided out of turn promotion and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the various judgements of this Court. The same are quoted below : (1) (2006) 2 UPLBEC 2790 (Prithviraj Chauhan and another v. State of U.P. and others) (2) 2006 (4) ESC 2901 (All) Para 22 (Constable No. 126, (Rajiv Chandra Kaushik v. State of U.P. and others) "22. The purpose of giving out-of-turn promotion is that if a person has shown an extra bravery and courage while eliminating the gangster and was involved in a various recovery of international gang dealing with fake currency, instrumentally in busting a gang of auto lifters and other various works then he is to be considered in view of the Government Order dated 3.12.1994 for out-of-turn promotion. The petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid extra courage has been recommended by the competent authority for giving out-of-turn promotion. The petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid extra courage has been recommended by the competent authority for giving out-of-turn promotion. It is also clear from the record that when the petitioner was promoted in Armed Police on the post of Head Constable, then the competent authority has recommended the case of the petitioner has clearly recommended for transferring the petitioner to civil police and then to grant promotion but the respondent No. 2 without considering all these aspects of the matter without taking the recommendations only on the ground that at the time when the petitioner has shown an extra bravery he was working in the armed police, therefore, he is entitled to be given promotion in the Armed police." (4) 2001(3) ESC (All) 1227 Para 9 (Krishna Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.) "9. After having examined the object and contents of the Government order, it has now to be seen as to whether any error has been committed by the committee in examining the claim of the petitioner for grant of out of turn promotion. The writ petition asks this Court to review the decision of the committee. The scope of judicial review of assessment made by the departmental promotion committee are well defined. The Apex Court in Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (2000) 8 SCC 395 , has laid down in paragraphs 40 and 41 as under : 40. Unless there is a strong case for applying the Wednesbury doctrine or there are mala fides, Courts and Tribunals cannot interfere with assessments made by Departmental Promotion Committees in regard to merit or fitness for promotion. But in rare cases, if the assessment is either proved to be malafide or is found based on inadmissible or irrelevant or insignificant and trivial material and if in attitude of ignoring or not giving weight to the positive aspects of ones career is strongly displayed, or if the inferences drawn are such that no reasonable person can reach such conclusion, or if there is illegality attached to the decisions, then the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution are not foreclosed. 41. 41. While the Courts are to be extremely careful in exercising the power of judicial review in dealing with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committee, the executive is also to bear in mind that in exceptional cases, the assessment of merit made by them is liable to be scrutinised by Courts, within the narrow Wednesbury principles or on the ground of mala fides. The judicial power remains but its use is restricted to rare and exceptional situations. We are making these remarks so that Courts or Tribunals may not.......by quoting this case as an easy precedent interfere with assessment of merit in every case. Courts and Tribunals can neither sit as appellate authorities nor substitute their own views to the views of Departmental Promotion Committees. Undue interference by the Courts or Tribunals will result in paralysing recommendations of Departmental Committees and promotions. The case on hand can be a precedent only in rare cases." 10. The main argument raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the administrative authority has also bound to record reasons as no reasons have been recorded rejecting the claim of the petitioner therefore, it will be presumed that the order impugned has been passed without application of mind and without assigning any reason. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Constitutional Bench judgement of the Apex Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 SC. 11. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavit it has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been considered and as the Committee has not recommended the claim of the petitioner, therefore, no out of turn promotion has been provided to the petitioner. Further it has been stated that the Committee has found that the petitioner does not come within the parameter provided in the Government Orders dated 3.2.1994 and 10.2.1994, therefore, the Committee of Management has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. In such a situation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is liable to be quashed. 12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 13. In such a situation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is liable to be quashed. 12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 13. There was an outstanding performance of the petitioner when he was posted in Allahabad at various police stations and the petitioner has arrested the main accused, who was involved in dacoity of one of the jewellery shop at Civil Lines. In 1999, the petitioner has also arrested one Nabin Ahmad, who was also involved in theft of the vehicles. One Hari Om Sahu, who was a harden criminal was killed by the petitioner and in other various incidents the petitioner was involved. The petitioner solves the cases and arrested harden criminals and various persons were also gundown by the petitioner. 14. The authorities in view of the aforesaid fact, has recommended the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion as the petitioner comes under the parameters and guidelines of the Government Order of 1994. But the respondents have not made any subjective satisfaction on the basis of the relevant record. Further it is to be noted that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, no reasons have been recorded, therefore, legally it will be presumed that order impugned is an order of non-application of mind as now it is well settled that administrative authority while considering the claim of any person has to record reason and if no reason has been recorded such order will be treated as non application of mind. 15. It is well settled that an order having civil consequences even though passed by the administrative authority must contain reasons so as to enable the aggrieved party to challenge the reasoning of the administrative authority. In the absence of reasons no foundation can be laid down by the petitioner and only argument remains is that the order is based upon non-application of mind. In our view if the reasoning of an order passed against the aggrieved person is not communicated and only a communication regarding decision has been communicated it cannot be assailed by the respondents that the grievance of a person has been decided. In our opinion, it is no order in eye of law and it has no legs to stand. 16. In our opinion, it is no order in eye of law and it has no legs to stand. 16. In case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 SC the Apex Court has already held as follows : "In view of the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework where under jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case. Therefore except in cases where the requirement has been disposed with expressly or by necessary implications, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision. The recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and assures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It is however not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. It is however not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicitly so as to indicate that the authority has been due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. 17. In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi and others, 1991 (2) SCC, 716 the Apex Court has held as under : The reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. They also exclude the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an Inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. When an order affects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact whether it is a quasi-judicial or administrative order, and unless the rule expressly or by necessary implication excludes recording of reasons, it is implicit that the principles of natural justice or fair play require recording of germane and precise relevant reasons as a part of fair procedure. In an administrative decision, its order/decision itself may not contain reasons. It may not be the requirement of the rules, but atleast, the record should disclose reasons. It may not be like a judgement. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicitly so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, of it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons. If the appellate or revisional authority disagrees, the reasons must be contained in the order under challenge. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, of it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons. If the appellate or revisional authority disagrees, the reasons must be contained in the order under challenge. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person. 18. In the case of M/s Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1970, SC, 1302, the Apex Court has held as under : "The High Court in rejecting the petition filed by the appellants has observed that the District Magistrate in considering the explanation of the appellants had "considered all the materials" and also that "the State Government in considering the appeal had considered all the materials". We have, however, nothing on the record to show what materials if any were considered by the District Magistrate and the State Government. The High Court has also observed that Clause 7 of the Sugar Dealers Licensing Order does not require "the State Government to pass a reasoned order. All that is required is to give an aggrieved person an opportunity of being heard." We are of the view that the High Court erred in so holding. The appellants have a right not only to have an opportunity to make a representation, but they are entitled to have their representation considered by an Authority unconcerned with the dispute and to be given information which would show the decision was reached on the merits and not on considerations of policy or expency. This is a clear implication of the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the appellate authority; it is not required to be expressly mentioned in the statute. There is nothing on the record which shows that the representation made by the appellants was even considered. This is a clear implication of the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the appellate authority; it is not required to be expressly mentioned in the statute. There is nothing on the record which shows that the representation made by the appellants was even considered. The fact that Clause 7 of the Sugar Dealers Licensing Order to which the High Court has referred does not "require the State Government to pass a reasoned order" is wholly irrelevant. The nature of the proceeding requires that the State Government must be given adequate reasons which disclose that an attempt was made to reach a conclusion according to law and justice." 19. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of the view that the order dated 18th March, 2005 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.3.2005 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders in view of the observations made above after considering the various reports of the authorities which are in favour of the petitioner. The order to this effect be passed by the respondent No. 2 preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 20. No order as to costs. ————