1. Petitioner through the medium of present petition is seeking a direction to the respondents for according him the benefit of out of turn promotion as Head Constable w.e.f. 2007 and as Assistant Sub Inspector from 2008. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after he came to be appointed as Constable in Jammu and Kashmir Police, he participated in various anti-terrorist operations. In 2003, the petitioner killed three militants at Tantha in district Doda, for which he was given a cash reward of Rs. 15,000. In 2006, in an anti-militant operation, petitioner killed one more militant and taking into consideration the said act of courage and bravery on his part, he was accorded out of turn promotion to the post of Selection Grade Constable in Dec'2006. 3. Again in May'2007, the petitioner participated in an anti-terrorist encounter, in which one militant was killed in Dehrote area of district Doda, for which the petitioner was awarded Sher-e-Kashmir medal for gallantry. In Jan'2008, on receipt of an information from the concerned sources, a search operation was conducted by a police party headed by the petitioner in Banshal Nalla and Soons Nalla in district Doda, in which two militants were killed. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the policy of the State Government as formulated vide Order No. Home-559(P) of 2007 dt. 29th of Nov'07, the petitioner was entitled to out of turn promotion firstly as Head Constable for his act of bravery shown in the year 2007, and then to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, for having participated in anti militancy encounter in the year 2008, but the said benefit has not been given to the petitioner. It is stated that similarly situated persons have been accorded this benefit of out of turn promotion but the case of the petitioner has not been considered in accordance with the mandate of the policy on the subject, referred to above. 5. Objections have been filed by the respondents. Participation of the petitioner in different anti-terrorist encounters has not been denied by them. It is stated that for the courageous act on the part of petitioner having participated in such activities, he has been fully rewarded. Firstly, he was awarded cash amount of Rs.15,000/-, and thereafter in 2006, he was accorded out of turn promotion as Selection Grade Constable. Participation of the petitioner in different anti-terrorist encounters has not been denied by them. It is stated that for the courageous act on the part of petitioner having participated in such activities, he has been fully rewarded. Firstly, he was awarded cash amount of Rs.15,000/-, and thereafter in 2006, he was accorded out of turn promotion as Selection Grade Constable. It is stated that in terms of the policy relating to grant of said benefit, only those cases are considered which are judged to be 'outstanding performances' by the authority concerned. So far as the petitioner's case is concerned, his partici­pation in later anti-terrorist encounters is not denied but his role was not assessed as "outstanding performance", by the competent authority, and therefore, his case cannot be considered for further out of turn promotion. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. It be seen that having faced with an unprecedented crisis on account of rising violent and terrorist activities in the State of J&K, the Government formulated a policy in terms of Circular No. 14-GR of 1990 dt. 6th of March'90, whereby all Heads of the Department of the State, were advised to take note of the conduct and performance of each individual employee so that they could be rewarded accord­ingly or punished wherever the circumstances of the case so warrant. It was in view of the said policy that the police personnel were also granted benefit of out of turn promotion or payment of cash award or gallantry certificates for participating in anti-terrorist encounters. This, however, depended upon the performance of the concerned employee and the role played by him in such anti-insurgency activities, which was to be assessed by the competent authority. 8. In the present case, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner participated in anti-insurgency activities on different occasions. As noticed above, for the role played in said activities in the year, the petitioner was awarded cash payment of Rs.15000/-. Later, in 2006, he was granted the benefit of out of turn promotion as Selection Grade Constable also. This was done by the competent authority taking into consideration the role played by the petitioner in the anti-ter­rorist encounters. As noticed above, for the role played in said activities in the year, the petitioner was awarded cash payment of Rs.15000/-. Later, in 2006, he was granted the benefit of out of turn promotion as Selection Grade Constable also. This was done by the competent authority taking into consideration the role played by the petitioner in the anti-ter­rorist encounters. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that his case was not consid­ered properly by the authority concerned for the act of bravery which he performed during the year 2007 and 2008 in anti-insurgency activities cannot be accepted. As indicated above, the benefit of out of turn promotion is to be granted depending upon the performance of an employee in such activities and it is only when the said performance is assessed as "outstanding", by the competent authority, the said benefit is accorded. 9. In the case in hand, the categoric stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner's performance in later anti-insurgency activities in the year 2007 and 2008 was not adjudged as "outstanding", by the competent authority, and as such, his case was not considered for out of turn promotion. As indicated above, grant of such a benefit relates only to the performance of an individual employee which has to be assessed by the competent authority, which in the present case found that the role of the petitioner was not outstanding in the above referred two anti-insurgency activities. Under such circumstances, no interference is called for. The plea of the petitioner that similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit and he has been discriminated in this regard, can also not be accepted. This is because, it is only on the basis of the assessment of overall performance of individual employee made by the competent authority that the evaluation is to be done and the benefit has to be released accordingly. Plea of discrimination, as such, is unsustainable. It is purely a matter of subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, and as indicated above, there can be no justification for interference by this court over such a satisfaction recorded by the said authority. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed.