JUDGMENT : TASHI RABSTAN, J. 1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of Govt. Order No. Home-1344(P) of 2010, dated 28.10.2010 (wrongly mentioned as 2009) having endorsement No. Home/PB-1/WP/18/2010, dated 28.10.2010, issued by Respondent No. 1, whereby the case of petitioner for out-of-turn promotion has been rejected. Further, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be commanded to grant him the benefit of out-of-turn promotion with all consequential benefits as have been given to similarly situated persons including his juniors. The facts-in-brief as averred in the writ petition are that the petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector in the J&K Police on 11.11.1990. Thereafter, when the militancy was at its peak, the petitioner was posted in Special Operation Group in Kashmir Valley. It is averred that he was promoted as Inspector on 20.05.1996 when he was working in Special Operation Group in Kashmir Valley. Thereafter, vide Order No. CS/97-Estt(SOG)-952426, dated 29.11.1997 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone, he was directed to function as Deputy S.P. (Sub-Divisional Police Officer), Ganderbal. Thereafter, vide Order No. CS/98-SOG(Estt)/72325, dated 25.01.1998 he was directed to function as Dy. S.P. Operations, Ganderbal. Subsequently, vide Order No. Home-205(P) of 2002, dated 02.04.2002, the petitioner was promoted on the said post in his own pay and grade. Finally, after the recommendation of J&K Public Service Commission, the promotion of petitioner against the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police came to be regularized with effect from 27.08.2004 vide Govt. Order No. Home-367(P) of 2007, dated 01.08.2007. 2. The petitioner through the medium of this petition is seeking direction to the respondents for according him out-of-turn promotion against the post of Deputy S.P. with effect from the date he was made Incharge of the said post on the analogy of similarly situated persons, who were given out-of-turn/accelerated promotion on the ground that they were instrumental in combating militancy related operations and elimination of large number of hardcore militants. The grievance of petitioner is that although he was also a part of such operations while serving in Kashmir Valley and led many operations and was instrumental in eliminating many hardcore militants, yet he has been denied out-of-turn promotion against the post of Deputy S.P., thus he has been discriminated with by the authorities at the helm of affairs. The grievance of petitioner is that although he was also a part of such operations while serving in Kashmir Valley and led many operations and was instrumental in eliminating many hardcore militants, yet he has been denied out-of-turn promotion against the post of Deputy S.P., thus he has been discriminated with by the authorities at the helm of affairs. It is averred that during the period when he was serving in Kashmir Valley, he had been awarded number of Commendation Certificates as also President's Medal on 15.09.2000 for always being forefront against the militancy in the Valley. It is averred that compelled by non-consideration of his case for out-of-turn promotion, the petitioner filed SWP No. 693/2005, which came to be disposed of on 07.09.2009 with a direction to the respondents to consider his case in the light of judgment passed in SWP No. 1689/2007. Further, it is averred that despite passing of the judgment, the Respondent No. 1 issued Order No. Home-1344(P) of 2010, dated 28.10.2010 (wrongly mentioned as 2009) rejecting the case of petitioner for out-of-turn promotion. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that despite there being a clear-cut policy by the Government for according out-of-turn/accelerated promotion to such officers/officials who were instrumental in containing militancy in Kashmir Valley, the petitioner has been denied such promotion, although on many occasions he was also recommended by the competent authority for out-of-turn/accelerated promotion along with other similarly situated persons. It is further contended that even the petitioner has also been awarded President's Medal for showing excellent courage during such militancy related operations. He further contended that though many such similarly situated persons have already been accorded out-of-turn/accelerated promotions, but the petitioner has been deprived of the same. 4. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents. It is averred that the claim of petitioner for out-of-turn promotion had earlier been considered in compliance to the order dated 07.09.2009 passed by this Court in SWP No. 693/2005, however, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 28.10.2010, impugned herein. Further, it is averred that the order whereunder the petitioner was asked to work as Incharge Dy. S.P. (Operations) since 1997 was issued by an incompetent authority. Further, it is averred that the order whereunder the petitioner was asked to work as Incharge Dy. S.P. (Operations) since 1997 was issued by an incompetent authority. It is further averred that as Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone was not competent to place the petitioner against a gazetted post, as such under law the petitioner cannot be regularized with effect from a retrospective date when he was asked to work as Incharge Dy. S.P. (Operations). It is also averred that since the petitioner has already been given out-of-turn promotion on 20.05.1996 from the rank of Sub-Inspector to the rank of Inspector in recognition of his performance on anti-militancy front, the policy governing out-of-turn promotion does not envisage double out-of-rank promotion to the police officers for their excellent performance either on anti-militancy front or in the discharge of routine duties. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the file as well as the record produced by learned AAG. 6. Admittedly, before filing the present petition, the petitioner had earlier also filed SWP No. 033/2005, which came to be disposed of by this Court on 07.09.2009 with the following direction: "Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in SWP No. 1689/2007. The said judgment shall form part of this order. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in SWP No. 1689/2007, within a period of three months from the date of copy of this order made available to the respondents by the petitioner." 7. In view of the order passed in SWP No. 693/2005, it would be appropriate to reproduce the operative part of order passed in SWP No. 1689/2007 on 05.05.2009 hereunder. "In view of the statement made by Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned AAG, and also keeping in view the facts noticed above that their case was recommended by the Respondent No. 2 and also that the petitioners were assured regarding regularization of their services w.e.f. the date, they were holding the post of Dy. "In view of the statement made by Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned AAG, and also keeping in view the facts noticed above that their case was recommended by the Respondent No. 2 and also that the petitioners were assured regarding regularization of their services w.e.f. the date, they were holding the post of Dy. S.P. in Incharge capacity subject to the availability of posts, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall file a detailed representation before Respondent No. 2, who shall consider and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date, a copy of this order along with the representation, if any, is filed by the petitioners. In case, it is found that the vacancies were available on the date, the petitioners were given the charge of the post in Incharge capacity, then, their claims for regularization of their services against the aforementioned post shall be considered from the date, they were placed as Incharge Dy. S.P. Let this exercise be completed and appropriate orders passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order." 8. What is to be seen here that this Court while deciding SWP No. 1689/2007, had directed the respondents to consider the claims of petitioners therein for regularization of their services against the post of Dy. S.P. from the date they were given the charge of the said post, in case it is found that the vacancies were available on the said date. The said direction has also been applied in SWP No. 693/2005, earlier filed by the petitioner herein; meaning thereby the petitioner was also to be considered for confirmation/promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. from the date he was given the charge of said post in case of availability of vacancy on the said date. 9. Admittedly, it has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner had been functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 29.11.1997 in response to the order issued by the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone. 9. Admittedly, it has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner had been functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 29.11.1997 in response to the order issued by the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone. Further, it is the stand of respondents in their objections that the petitioner was posted as Incharge Deputy Superintendent (Operations) by the then Director General of Police vide Order No. 3397, dated 13.10.1998, whereas he came to be promoted on the said post in his own pay and grade vide order dated 02.04.2002 issued by the Government of J&K, although his promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police came to be regularized with effect from 27.08.2004 vide order dated 01.08.2007. Thus, it is clear that although the petitioner was promoted as Deputy S.P. on regular basis with effect from 27.08.2004, but, in fact, he had been functioning against the said post with effect from 29.11.1997 without any break; meaning thereby he had been serving on the said post against a clear vacancy at the most with effect from 13.10.1998 when he was made Incharge Deputy Superintendent (Operations) by the DGP. Otherwise too, the respondents in their objections have not denied that there was no vacancy of Deputy S.P. available as on 13.10.1998 when the petitioner was posted as Incharge Deputy Superintendent (Operations) by the then Director General of Police vide Order No. 3397, dated 13.10.1998. Further, the concerned authorities time and again had been recommending for 'out-of-turn promotion/confirmation' of petitioner in the rank of Dy. S.P. based upon his courage displayed during anti-terrorist operations as also being instrumental in successfully combating anti-militancy related operations and eliminating a large number of hardcore militants as also recovering huge consignments of highly sophisticated weapons from them. Therefore, in terms of order dated 07.09.2009 passed in SWP No. 693/2005, the petitioner was to be given promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. from the date he was given the charge of said post. However, the respondents instead rejected his case vide the impugned order. 10. Further, I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for respondents that as the petitioner has already been given out-of-turn promotion from the rank of Sub-Inspector to the rank of Inspector, therefore, he cannot be granted second out-of-turn promotion in view of the policy governing such promotion. 11. 10. Further, I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for respondents that as the petitioner has already been given out-of-turn promotion from the rank of Sub-Inspector to the rank of Inspector, therefore, he cannot be granted second out-of-turn promotion in view of the policy governing such promotion. 11. Here, I would like to quote the relevant portion of Govt. Order No. Home-450/P of 1996, dated 24.12.1996: "In recognition of the meritorious services rendered and exemplary courage shown by them in performing the arduous nature of duties, the following officers of the Jammu and Kashmir Police are hereby granted in relaxation of rules, one rank promotion in the Police Department as indicated against each:- 1. Shri Abdul Rashid Baba, Inspector, presently working as PSO to Hon'ble Chief Minister as Dy. Supdt. of Police; 2. Shri Narinderpal Singh, Sub-Inspector at present working as PSO to Hon'ble Chief Minister as Inspector; 3. Shri Abdul Salam Rather, Head Constable, presently working as Wireless Operator with the Hon'ble Chief Minister as Assistant Sub-Inspector. By order of the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir." 12. Further, I would like to quote the relevant portion of Govt. Order No. Home-(P) of 1999, dated 08.07.1999: "In relaxation of standing rules and procedure, sanction is accorded to the out of turn promotion of the following Police Officers to the posts shown against each:- S. No. Name with designation Post against which promoted Grade 1. Sh. Abdul Rashid Baba Dy.S.P (holding the post of S.P in officiating capacity) S.P Rs.10,000-15200 2. Sh. N.P Singh, Inspector (holding the post of S.P in officiating capacity) Dy.S.P Rs.7500-12000 By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir." 13. It is to be seen here that all the three above-mentioned police officers/officials were given first out-of-turn promotion in relaxation of rules on the basis of meritorious services rendered by them and exemplary courage shown by them, but it has neither been disclosed in the order nor borne out from the record that what sort of exemplary courage they had shown while performing the duties. The only thing which has come on record that all these three police officers/officials were working with the then Chief Minister of the State for the last so many years. The only thing which has come on record that all these three police officers/officials were working with the then Chief Minister of the State for the last so many years. Not only this, vide order dated 08.07.1999 (supra), above-mentioned Abdul Rashid Baba and Narinderpal Singh were again given second out-of-turn promotion, that too again by relaxing the standing rules and procedure. 14. In response to a RTI query, the Office of IG Headquarters, Jammu vide No. P-Case-A-68/99-PHQ, dated 16.02.1999 had replied that though the normal period for promotion from one rank to another is five years, but considering the outstanding performance of Abdul Rashid Baba and N.P. Singh, they have been recommended for out-of-turn promotion for which tenure in a particular rank should not apply. 15. The order issued by the State Government does not disclose that on what basis both the above-mentioned officers were given second out-of-turn promotion and what was the criteria of their outstanding performance. Even the record produced by learned AAG, containing seven files does not disclose that what were the basis in according two out-of-turn promotions within a span of two and a half years to the afore-mentioned officers, that too in relaxing the standing rules and procedure. Not only this, even the record reveals that S/Shri Abdul Rashid Baba and N.P. Singh were given two years extension in service beyond the date of their normal superannuation. 16. Here, I would like to quote hereunder the relevant portion of order passed by this Court on 07.05.2016: "......Mr. Nargal, learned AAG shall produce complete original records of Annexure-G to the writ petition as also records whereby two out-of-turn promotions were granted in favour of S/Sh. Tajinder Singh, Shiv Kumar Chouhan and Kulwant Singh Jasrotia. He shall also disclose about the exceptional circumstances due to which Rules have been relaxed for out-of-turn promotion in favour of S/Sh. Abdul Rashid Baba and N.P. Singh." 17. Though Mr. Nagal has produced the record, but he has failed to disclose the exceptional circumstances which compelled the respondents to grant two out-of-turn promotions to Abdul Rashid Baba and N.P. Singh, although they never participated in any anti-militancy operations and there were no such reports. It seems respondents have nothing to explain for obvious reasons. 18. Though Mr. Nagal has produced the record, but he has failed to disclose the exceptional circumstances which compelled the respondents to grant two out-of-turn promotions to Abdul Rashid Baba and N.P. Singh, although they never participated in any anti-militancy operations and there were no such reports. It seems respondents have nothing to explain for obvious reasons. 18. I would like to quote hereunder the relevant portion of Note-24 written by Deputy Secretary to Government on 04.01.2001 in File No. Home/PB-l/Misc/3/98, relating to Abdul Rashid Baba for according two years extension in his favour after his retirement: "Shri Abdul Rashid Baba is presently posted as Personal Security Officer to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, J&K and is retiring from service on 30.04.2001. The officer has earlier been given two promotions Out of Turn in the past, in view of Meritorious Service and by virtue of his close association with the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Security for long.." 19. Therefore, in view of above, I do not wish to comment any further. 20. In the objections, the respondents have admitted that vide Order No. 533(P) of 2000, dated 12.12.2000 four officers, namely, Gulbadan Singh, Gan Shayam, Kuldeep Singh and Kuldeep Sharma were regularized as Dy. S.Ps in relaxation of rules with effect from the dates they were ordered to work against the said post by the Director General of Police, J&K. 21. It has also been pleaded on behalf of petitioner that one Noor Mohd., Selection Grade Constable was promoted as Head Constable vide Order No. 3439 of 2000, dated 17.10.2000 and within a period of one month he was further promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector vide Order No. 3852 of 2000, dated 25.11.2000. 22. Whereas, in case of petitioner, it has come on record that he was a part of Special Operation Group and he remained posted in militancy infested areas of the Valley. It has also come on record that he had been in forefront in militancy related operations while he was serving as Sub-Inspector, then Inspector and finally as Deputy S.P. on Incharge basis. Further, it has come on record that he was instrumental in successfully combating anti-militancy related operations and eliminating a large number of hardcore militants as also recovering huge consignments of highly sophisticated weapons from them. Further, it has come on record that he was instrumental in successfully combating anti-militancy related operations and eliminating a large number of hardcore militants as also recovering huge consignments of highly sophisticated weapons from them. The petitioner has been awarded more than fifty Cash Rewards/Commendation Certificates/Letters of Appreciation by the higher authorities of Police and Army ranging from Director Generals of Police, Additional Director Generals of Police, Inspector Generals of Police, Kashmir, Deputy Inspector Generals of Police, Sr. Superintendents of Police, Superintendents of Police and different Commanding Officers of the Army showing him to be a brave, tenacious and daring police officer who had conducted many successful anti-militancy operations and always led his team from front. Even the petitioner has also been awarded Gallantry Award/Medal by the then President of India on 15.09.2000. 23. Here, I would like to quote hereunder the relevant portion of Supplementary Affidavit filed by the then DGP, J&K Police on 1st May, 2004 in SWP No. 1018/2000, decided on 23.12.2004: "That the criteria adopted in according out of turn promotion was the recommendations of the field agencies and keeping in view the performance of each individual in fighting militancy, i.e., killing of the militants or actively taking part in destroying the militant's network and their hideouts." 24. In the instant case, the petitioner was firstly recommended for second out-of-turn promotion by the then IGP, Kashmir Zone on 26.03.1998 (Annexure "C" to the petition) being the head of the field agencies. Again, he was recommended for second out-of-turn promotion by the then IGP, Kashmir Zone vide No. CS/2000. P.SOG-Kupwara/5876, dated 17.07.2000 (Annexure "D" to the petition) in view of his outstanding performance in individual capacity in fighting militancy, i.e., killing of top ranking terrorists and recovering a large quantity of arms/ammunition. Thus, it can be said that the performance of petitioner on anti-militancy front was consistent and exceptional right from Sub-Inspector to Deputy S.P. keeping in view the outcome of the operations/encounters/incidents. Even the respondents have not denied in their pleadings that the petitioner was instrumental in conducting many successful anti-militancy operations and killing number of hardcore militants as well as recovering huge arms and ammunition or that his performance was consistent and exceptional on anti-militancy front and was eligible, rather their stand is that second out-of-turn promotion cannot be granted to the petitioner in terms of the policy governing the same. 25. 25. The official respondents in SWP No. 1018/2000 (supra) had themselves furnished a list of as many as 107 Constables, Selection grade Constables, Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors who have been given more than one out of turn promotions. Thus, the respondents have themselves belied their claim in the instant writ petition in maintaining that the policy governing out-of-turn promotion does not envisage double out-of-rank promotion to the police officers for their excellent performance either on anti-militancy front or in the discharge of routine duties. If the petitioner had played the same role as was played by similarly circumstanced persons and the same has not been denied by the respondents, then he too was entitled for the same treatment and the same could not have been denied by the Government on lame excuses, that too when aforementioned Abdul Rashid Baba and N.P. Singh had been given two out-of-turn promotions who never participated in anti-militancy operations. The action of the respondents in applying double standards and different yardsticks for the same class of employees facing similar circumstances cannot be appreciated. 26. Therefore, in view of outstanding/meritorious performance of petitioner on anti-terrorist front and awarding of Commendation Certificates/Letters of Appreciation by the higher authorities, Bravery Medal/award by the then President of India as also in view of Supplementary Affidavit filed by the then DGP, J&K in SWP No. 1018/2000 (supra) and Govt. Order No. Home-3(P) of 2000, dated 06.01.2000, the petitioner deserves to be granted second out-of-turn promotion/confirmation from the date he was posted as Dy. S.P. on Incharge basis by the then DGP. Otherwise too, a similar treatment cannot be denied to the petitioner in law nor can he be debarred from claiming parity with other similarly situated persons who have been granted out-of-turn promotions. 27. In view of the above discussion, it seems the policy governing out-of-turn promotion has not been implemented in right earnest and with honest approach; rather the same is being used to promote the officials on the basis of liking and dis-liking and on consideration other than for which the policy has been formulated. From the above discussed facts, it appears that the power in granting out-of-turn promotions has been exercised arbitrarily, irrationally, unfairly, which has resulted in discrimination and hostile treatment to the petitioner as there has been violation of the prescribed norms and the criterion. From the above discussed facts, it appears that the power in granting out-of-turn promotions has been exercised arbitrarily, irrationally, unfairly, which has resulted in discrimination and hostile treatment to the petitioner as there has been violation of the prescribed norms and the criterion. The rule has to be applied objectively and uniformly and not on the basis of liking or dis-liking of the authorities concerned. 28. Now the question arises that from which date the respondents ought to reconsider the claim of petitioner for granting him retrospective effect of promotion and reckon his seniority accordingly. 29. No doubt the petitioner was directed to function as Dy. S.P. (Sub-Divisional Police Officer), Ganderbal by the then IGP, Kashmir Zone vide order dated 29.11.1997 (supra) and then Dy. S.P. (Operations) Ganderbal vide order dated 25.01.1998 (supra), however, the petitioner for the first time was made Incharge Deputy Superintendent (Operations) Ganderbal and that too by the then Director General of Police vide Order No. 3397, dated 13.10.1998, which means the said post was available and vacant at the relevant time, which position the respondents have also not denied in their objections. Further, it would be relevant to mention here that the posts of Deputy S.P. (Operations) were created by the State Government exclusively to counter militancy related incidents in militancy infested districts and, as per petitioner he remained in the SOG right from Sub-Inspector to Deputy S.P. The petitioner came to be promoted on the post of Deputy S.P. in his own pay and grade vide order dated 02.04.2002 (supra) and his promotion on the said post came to be regularized with effect from 27.08.2004 vide order dated 01.08.2007. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was serving against the post of Deputy Superintendent (Operations) on Incharge basis against a clear vacancy with effect from 13.10.1998, although he was given regular promotion with effect from 27.08.2004. Deputy S.P. (Operations), therefore, was a sanctioned post borne on J&K Police (Gazetted) cadre and at the relevant time, i.e., on 13.10.1998 the post of Deputy S.P. was vacant/available in District Ganderbal. Therefore, in my view, the respondents ought to reconsider the claim of petitioner for granting him retrospective effect of promotion with effect from 13.10.1998 and reckoning his seniority accordingly. 30. Therefore, in my view, the respondents ought to reconsider the claim of petitioner for granting him retrospective effect of promotion with effect from 13.10.1998 and reckoning his seniority accordingly. 30. My this view is also fortified by the view taken by a coordinate Bench of this Court in case, titled as, Syed Ashaq Hussain Bukhari v. Union of India 2013 (2) JKJ 377 [HC], SWP No. 1907/2009, decided on 04.01.2013, whereby, while allowing the writ petition, the respondents were directed to reckon the seniority of petitioner as Superintendent of Police from the date he joined as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations). It would be relevant to reproduce Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment hereunder: "16. The respondents also cannot dilute and downplay PHQ Order No. 2002 of 1998, dated 24th June, 1998 on the ground that the author of the order was not competent to pass the order. The order has been acted upon not only qua petitioner but also other officers affected by the order. It is too late in the day for the respondents to question power and competence of Director General of Police, to make the PHQ Order No. 2002 of 1998, dated 24th June, 1998 depriving the petitioner of benefit otherwise available to him in terms of the aforesaid order. 17. The petitioner, having been placed as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations), vide aforesaid order with effect from 24th June, 1998, cannot be denied benefit of service rendered as such for the purpose of seniority, once the petitioner was, thereafter, considered fit and eligible and substantively promoted as Superintendent of Police. The service rendered as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations) with effect from 24th June, 1998 to 1st December, to 1999, is to be reckoned and computed while determining the petitioner's seniority in the rank of Superintendent of Police. It is admitted case of the parties that a number of posts in the cadre of Superintendent of Police were vacant on the date, i.e. 24th June, 1998, the petitioner was placed as Incharge, Superintendent of Police (Operations), Budgam. The non-availability of the post in the aforesaid cadre, therefore, is not as a ground available to the respondents to deny benefit to the petitioner. 18. The non-availability of the post in the aforesaid cadre, therefore, is not as a ground available to the respondents to deny benefit to the petitioner. 18. It is pertinent to point out that service rendered by an officer in a promotional post on adhoc, incharge, stopgap basis is not to be treated as non-est and an officer holding such position has a right to get his service counted, once he is promoted on substantive basis. The only impediment that may stand in his way would be non-availability of the post or its non availability in his quota in case the post is to be filled up through direct as well as promotional avenues. Reference in this regard may be made to following observation of Supreme Court in "Suraj Parkash Gupta & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors." AIR 2000 SC 2386 : 2010 (5) JKJ 497 [SC]; "Thus, there is overwhelming authority of this Court to hold that adhoc, stop gap service could be regularized from an anterior date after consulting the Service Commission from the date of vacancy in promotee quota, after considering fitness, eligibility suitability and ACRs. Therefore, the adhoc/stop gap service rendered by promotees beyond six months and without the consent of the Public Service Commission as per Regulation 4 (d) (ii) cannot be treated as non-est. It can be regularized later after consulting the Commission in respect of posts in the promotion quota and subject to eligibility and suitability based on ACRs, etc. Only the period rendered outside quote or the period rendered within quota when the promotee was not eligible or found fit has to be excluded." 31. It was further held: "19.......In case the petitioner had dash, dedication and direction as a police officer to accept the challenge and because of his courage and commitment was picked up to man a key position in anti-militancy operations, those who watched the show on sidelines and stood at the fence, allowing the petitioner to jump into arena and did not challenge his placement as I/C (Operations), Budgam would be least aggrieved and without a cause to question his induction from an earlier date." 32. The said judgment has also been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA (SW) No. 156/2013, titled as, Amjad Parvez Mirza v. Syed Ashik Hussain Bukhari, decided on 26.10.2015. The said judgment has also been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA (SW) No. 156/2013, titled as, Amjad Parvez Mirza v. Syed Ashik Hussain Bukhari, decided on 26.10.2015. He further stated at the Bar that the State Government has already implemented the said judgment. 33. The Apex Court in case, titled as, Mohd. Aftab Mir v. State of J&K, 2011 (2) JKJ 1 [SC] on 31 March, 2011, while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant therein observed that his claim for out-of-turn promotion requires reconsideration. The Apex Court, accordingly, directed the respondents to reconsider his case for granting him retrospective effect of promotion along with such other benefits for which he may become entitled to in accordance with law. 34. This Court in SWP No. 1441/2011, titled as, Mukhtar Ahmed Dhar v. State of J&K, decided on 03.05.2013, reported in 2013 (3) JKJ 229 [HC], incidentally to which I am author of the same, has taken the same view. 35. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove and after considering the material produced before the Court in the shape of writ record, the record produced by the respondents as also the photocopies of the documents/certificates produced by the learned counsel for petitioner during the course of hearing of this case regarding consistently exceptional performance of petitioner on anti-militancy front, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Govt. Order No. Home-1344(P) of 2010, dated 28.10.2010 (wrongly mentioned as 2009) having endorsement No. Home/PB-l/WP/18/2010, dated 28.10.2010, issued by Respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion/confirmation to the rank of Dy. S.P. from a retrospective date, i.e., with effect from 13.10.1998 with all consequential benefits and reckon his seniority accordingly. While reconsidering the case of petitioner, the respondents would also take into account Govt. Order No. Home-(P) of 1999, dated 08.07.1999, whereby Abdul Rashid Baba and N.P. Singh have been granted second out-of-turn promotion. Let the relevant orders with regard to the promotion/confirmation of petitioner from a retrospective date be passed within a period of two months from today. Let the photocopies of documents/certificates produced by the learned counsel for petitioner during the course of hearing of this petition be made part of the file and Registry to tag the same accordingly. Let the relevant orders with regard to the promotion/confirmation of petitioner from a retrospective date be passed within a period of two months from today. Let the photocopies of documents/certificates produced by the learned counsel for petitioner during the course of hearing of this petition be made part of the file and Registry to tag the same accordingly. Connected miscellaneous petition(s), accordingly, stands disposed of. Registry is directed to return the record to the learned AAG against proper receipt.