Hon’ble Shishir Kumar,J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.09.2009, passed by the respondent No.2, by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for out of turn promotion. 3. The facts in short are that the petitioner claims out of turn promotion on the basis of Government Order issued by the respondents giving such benefit to a person who has done a work of bravery. The petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector in Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. When, the petitioner was posted at Ghaziabad in 2003 during patrolling in the midnight of 19/20.05.2003 a news was flashed from the City Control Room that Mohan Don of Agra and his associate criminals have robbed two persons. Having received such information, after discussing the operational strategy with SP City to track down the alleged robbers, they arrived near Meerut-Ghaziabad-Delhi tri-junction. There they saw a speeding Maruti Zen Car of the aforesaid number going towards Hindon River Bridge. It was directed to the Station Officer of the Border Police Station and Mobile Vans to trap the said vehicle and arrest the robbers. When the speeding Maruti Zen Car moving in a zig-zag manner reached near Kanavni culvert Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, then Sub-Inspector and Station Officer Police Station Indirapuram reached there from Indirapuram side with police force. Then, the Maruti Zen Car suddenly stopped and the occupants of the Car started firing to kill the police officers and one bullet breaking the left side window glass of the SSP’s Car pierced the back rest of the back seat of the vehicle. Both the criminals opened incessant firing upon the police party with an intention to kill them, in which Sri Chandra Prakash SSP, Sri Gyaneshwar Tiwari ASP and Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan undeterred by this firing and in utter disregard for their safety and security came out of their vehicles along with the members of the police force and challenged the criminals to surrender, but the firing was not stopped. In the aforesaid firing, both the criminals were injured and fell down. Later, they succumbed to their injuries in the Hospital. 4. As the petitioner was also one of the member of the said party, therefore, the relevant authority on the basis of aforesaid act has recommended name of various other persons including the petitioner for out of turn promotion. In the aforesaid firing, both the criminals were injured and fell down. Later, they succumbed to their injuries in the Hospital. 4. As the petitioner was also one of the member of the said party, therefore, the relevant authority on the basis of aforesaid act has recommended name of various other persons including the petitioner for out of turn promotion. An enquiry to that effect has also been conducted by the District Magistrate and in the magisterial enquiry, work of the police party was appreciated that was also forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Home. Considering the entire material and magisterial enquiry report, the respondent No.8 Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, sent a proposal with regard to the out of turn promotion of the petitioner Santosh Kumar Singh Sub Inspector, Lal Bahadur Gunner, Nirdosh Kumar & Har Pal Singh Constable Driver vide letter dated 26.08.2003. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut, and Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut, has also recommended their claim for out of turn promotion due to the act of bravery in the aforesaid encounter. A cash award to that effect has also been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has not been informed about the decision of Committee, which examined the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion in view of the Government Order of 1994. The claim of the petitioner was rejected without assigning any reason and without mentioning bravery work done by the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The main submission made by Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was an outstanding performance of the petitioner in the said encounter and the claim of the petitioner was recommended, but in spite of the aforesaid fact, the order impugned dated 2nd September, 2009, has been passed that too without assigning any reason. The main submission made by Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was an outstanding performance of the petitioner in the said encounter and the claim of the petitioner was recommended, but in spite of the aforesaid fact, the order impugned dated 2nd September, 2009, has been passed that too without assigning any reason. From the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the only ground mentioned in the said order is that the act of the petitioner including other persons does not come under the purview of Government Order of 1994 and after perusal of the relevant records they are not entitled to get the promotion out of turn, but no reason has been recorded why recommendations made by SP concerned, DIG and IG concerned have not given any benefit to the petitioner for the purpose of getting promotion. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that as proper appreciation of the relevant record has not been done by the authority below at the time of consideration of the claim of the petitioner, therefore, as the administrative authority is also bound to record reasons and if no reasons have been recorded while rejecting the claim of the petitioner there will be a presumption that order impugned has been passed without application of mind. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matter needs reconsideration by the authority below strictly in accordance with law. 7. As counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, therefore, with the consent of the parties this writ petition is being decided on merits. 8. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been considered by the Committee and as the Committee has not recommended the claim of the petitioner, as such, out of turn promotion has not been provided. Further, the Committee has found that the petitioner does not come within the parameters provided in the Government Order dated 03.09.1994 and 10.02.1994, therefore, the Committee has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it clearly appears that performance of the petitioner is outstanding in the said encounter. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it clearly appears that performance of the petitioner is outstanding in the said encounter. Admittedly, the authorities have recommended the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion in the parameters and guidelines of the Government Order of 1994, but the respondents have not made any subjective satisfaction on the basis of relevant records. 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. 10. 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. 11. In case of S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1984, 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 under lying 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. 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.” 12. In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S.Gandhi and others, reported in 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. 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 a the least, 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 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.” 13. In the case of M/s Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. & others, reported in 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. 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. 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 given adequate reasons which disclose that an attempt was made to reach a conclusion according to law and justice.” 14. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of the view that the order dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 02.09.2009 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 within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 15. No order as to costs. _____________