JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, by which he had refused to grant the relief to the petitioner to interfere with the order of the Reward Committee of the Police Department dated 15.05.2014, by which it decided not to recommend the case of the petitioner, serving as Head Constable, for promotion on display of gallantry. 3. Learned Single Judge held that the reward committee declined to recommend the case of the petitioner for the reason that the purpose and effect of the information delivered by the petitioner, which was made the basis for claiming reward, was not shown, inasmuch as, the exact nature of the information was not given. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the petitioner had given some secret information, on which the image of the Police Department had improved. The nature of information has not been disclosed either in the writ petition or even orally to the Court. 5. We are unable to appreciate, as to how a secret information, the contents to which were not been disclosed either to the Committee of the Department or to the Court, can be the basis on which promotion be claimed on display of gallantry. 5. We asked learned counsel appearing for the appellant to give some indication of the nature of information, without disclosing the details, if he wants to keep the matter secret to consider whether the matter may be sent for review. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he himself is not aware of the nature of information, of which his client is claiming the promotion on display of gallantry. 6. The Special Appeal is wholly misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed.