1. This petition is admitted to hearing and is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as SPO in district Doda vide order Book No.1406 of 1999 dated 09.07.1999 and was adjusted as SPO in Police Station, Ramban. In order to curb the militancy in the area, search operations were launched by SDF, Gool/Ind/IRP 3rd Bn. The petitioner was one of the members of the said party. During the operation, one militant was killed. Not only this on 25.12.2001, 08.03.2002, 08.01.2002, 28.12.2002 and 25.02.2003 search operations were also launched by STF Gool/Ind in general area of village Dedha. During the said operations, ten militants were killed and in all the above said operations, the petitioner played an active role in killing the militants. In one of the operations conducted on 15.03.2003 against the militants, some of the colleagues of the peti­tioner died due to heavy gun battle and he was also seriously injured as he lost his one eye. Recommendation for his out-of-turn promotion was made by the Deputy, Superintendent of Police (Operations), Gool vide its communication dated 18.06.2004. Not only this, his case also stands recommended to the Director General of Police for his substantive appointment in the police department. The case of the petitioner is that seven SPOs, who were involved in search operation, have been absorbed by the Director General of Police in regular service on 24.04.2003, but till date the recommendation of the respondents did not bear any fruit which necessi­tated the petitioner to file the present writ petition. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The stand of the respondents on the other hand is that the petitioner has performed his routine operational duties along with police parties and has not shown any extra ordinary performance in the operations conducted by the police against the terrorists, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any recommendation for his absorption in the police force on regular basis. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not disputed that the recommendations for out-of-turn promotion has been made by the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Operations) in favour of the petitioner vide communication dated 18.06.2004. He has given details of the search operations conducted in which the petitioner has also participated. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not disputed that the recommendations for out-of-turn promotion has been made by the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Operations) in favour of the petitioner vide communication dated 18.06.2004. He has given details of the search operations conducted in which the petitioner has also participated. It is contended that in one of the operations the petitioner was grievously injured and lost one eye. The certificate issued by the Govt. Medical College Hospital, Jammu indicates that the petitioner had suffered a bullet injury in the left eye as a result of which he is blind by left eye. The rejection of his case by the respondents despite the recommendation by the Dy. Superintendent of Police seems to have been done without application of mind. As a matter of fact, the respondents have nowhere addressed the recommen­dations made by the Dy. Superintendent of the Police (Operations) in his favour. He has given the details of the operations conducted by the Police Division, Ramban in which the petitioner had actively participated. One is not able to understand that on what basis the case of the petitioner has been rejected in the face of the recommendations made by the persons under whose command the operation was conducted. It may also be noted that in view of the policy decision taken by the respondents in 2008, the case of the petitioner is securely covered under it. He suffered a bullet injury in his left eye, which bears the testimony to the fact that he actively participated in the said operation. The expression used in the communica­tion that regularization of SPOs in the Police Department on the basis of operational grounds entirely depends upon extra ordinary and active performance in operation against terrorists, did not indicate as to what was the extra ordinary and active performance in the operations against terrorists. In joint operations, ten militants were killed and the person, who has lost his left eye during the operation, cannot be said to have not played an extra ordinary and active role in the said operation. 6. The other aspect of the matter is that the private respondents have been appointed for having actively participated in the said operation. In joint operations, ten militants were killed and the person, who has lost his left eye during the operation, cannot be said to have not played an extra ordinary and active role in the said operation. 6. The other aspect of the matter is that the private respondents have been appointed for having actively participated in the said operation. The reply does not indicate what was the extra ordinary and active performance made by these persons in terms of the policy guidelines. In absence of disclosing grounds for their absorp­tion, it can be said that they were involved in a joint operation like the petitioner. 7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner could not be excluded for perma­nent absorption in the Police Department. It is pertinent to mention here in that the private respondents were also involved in the said operation in which the petitioner was involved. More, particularly, the operation dated 25.02.2003 in which some terrorists were killed. 8. Viewed thus, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Follower/Constable in J&K Police Department on permanent basis on the basis of insurgency operational grounds from the date the private respon­dents were appointed with all consequential benefits. This exercise shall be com­pleted by the respondents within a period of two month's from the date a copy of this order is served upon them. Disposed of along with connected CMP(s), if any.