Judgment 01. Petitioner in the instant petition has assailed order No.94 of 2014 dated 10.01.2014 whereby the petitioner’s claim for out of turn promotion to the rank of selection grade constable has been rejected. 02. Brief facts arising for consideration are as under:— Petitioner claimed to have been recommended vide communication dated 13.09.1997 for out of turn promotion to the rank of selection grade constable. Since no order was passed on the aforesaid recommendation of Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur, petitioner approached this Court by filing SWP No.796/2010 on 21.10.2011. This petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion. 03. In compliance to the order of this Court, vide Order No.94 of 2014 dated 10.01.2014 respondent No.2 considered the claim of the petitioner and rejected the same being devoid of any merit by holding as under:— “On consideration of the matter it has transpired that the petitioner is seeking relief claiming to be similarly situated with Constable Shakeel Ahmad. A perusal of the record has revealed that said Shakeel Ahmad has not been promoted out of turn to the rank of Sgct on the basis of securing first position in Range Classification/Outdoor but on the basis of displaying outstanding performance while leading passing out parade in his capacity as Parade Commander. Whereas, there has been no precedence in the department for promoting trainees out of turn on the sole ground of having secured first or second position in any of the events/fields of training course and allowing the same would lead to opening of floodgates, as a number of similarly situated personnel may claim the same benefits. Whereas, in view of the facts discussed here-in-above the petitioner, not being similarly situated with the private respondent Constable Shakeel Ahmad, cannot seek analogy and similar treatment as was given to said Shakeel Ahmad whose case was essentially and materially different and distinguished from that of the petitioner. Now, therefore, the claim of the petitioner having been duly considered, in the light of directions of the Hon’ble Court is hereby rejected being devoid of any merit. Let the petitioner be informed. Delay, if any is procedural. Grievance of the petitioner is that his claim has been wrongly rejected by the respondent. 04. Now, therefore, the claim of the petitioner having been duly considered, in the light of directions of the Hon’ble Court is hereby rejected being devoid of any merit. Let the petitioner be informed. Delay, if any is procedural. Grievance of the petitioner is that his claim has been wrongly rejected by the respondent. 04. Petitioner on being appointed as a Constable in Police Department was deputed to undergo recruitment training course at Police Training Academy at Udhampur. He passed the course by securing the following positions:— (i) 1st Position in range classification (Firing) (ii) 2nd position in indoor subject (Law) He was granted commendation certificate by Director cum Principal, Police Training College, Udhampur vide his Order Nos.654 of 1988 and 653 of 1988 dated 02.09.1988. 05. It is stated that in terms of Rule 385(5) of J&K Police Rules, Constables on and above matriculation having exceptional claim might be promoted to the rank of Head Constable Junior grade immediately on passing their recruit training course. For facility of reference, Rule 385(5) of the J&K Police Rules reads as under:— “5. Direct appointments of the Head Constable Junior Grade shall not be made, but constables on and above the matriculation standard of education and having exceptional claim may be promoted to the rank of Head Constable, Junior Grade immediately on passing their recruit’s course with credit, notwithstanding the marking system described in paragraph 2.” Thus, he was to be granted out of turn promotion on the basis of his performance as a recruit Constable. 06. Petitioner has placed reliance on Order No.931 of 1997 dated 26.04.1997, whereby recruit constable Shakeel Ahmed Belt No.653/J promoted as SG Constable (out of turn) with immediate effect in view of his outstanding performance vide order No.931 of 1997 dated 26.04.1997, and subsequent promotion based on Order No.931 of 1997 dated 26.04.1997 which reads as under:— “Recruit Constable Shakeel Ahmed No. 653/J who has secured 1st position in Range classification and 2nd position in outdoor has been assigned the job of parade commander in view of his outstanding performance, to command the passing out parade of 10th BRTC (Session January-1997) scheduled to be held at APTC Kathua on 28.04.1997. Therefore, in recognition of his outstanding performance being a recruit constable, he is hereby promoted as officiating Sg. Constable (out of turn) with immediate effect. He will remain on probation for a period of two years.” 07. Therefore, in recognition of his outstanding performance being a recruit constable, he is hereby promoted as officiating Sg. Constable (out of turn) with immediate effect. He will remain on probation for a period of two years.” 07. The petitioner, thus, submitted a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur for out of turn promotion on the same analogy as that of Sh. Shakeel Ahmed. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur finding merit in his representation vide letter No. 19099/OHC dated 13.09.1997 recommended the out of turn promotion to the petitioner to the Director General of Police stating that “strongly recommended that the case of the applicant may kindly be considered (as a most genuine case) and official may be promoted to the rank of SG Constable w.e.f. the date of passing out parade of 7th CRTC batch i.e. 13.06.1988 with all consequential benefits.” Further reminders were sent for the said promotion to the petitioner. 08. Petitioner approached this Court and in terms of the directions of this Court, order dated 10.01.2014, whereby the petitioner’s claim for grant of promotion as has been granted in case of Constable-Shakeel Ahmed has been denied on the ground that the case of Shakeel Ahmed was essentially and materially different and distinguish from that of the petitioner. Thus, order No.94 of 2014 dated 10.01.2014 was issued rejecting the case of the petitioner. 09. Respondent in their objections have stated that the petitioner’s case is different from Shakeel Ahmed with whom he is claiming parity as Shakeel Ahmed was not granted out of turn promotion on the basis of securing first position in recruitment training but on the basis of displaying outstanding performance while leading passing out parade, thus, according to them since petitioner was not similarly situated with Shakeel Ahmed and their case was distinguished, as such, his case was rightly rejected being devoid of merit. They further stated that out of turn promotions are granted only in conformity with policy framed by the Government note vide communication No. Home/PB-III/62/4/2008 dated 25.09.2009 and UB/M-27/2007-II/0357-67 dated 02.03.2013. Respondents have not produced the record. 10. Perusal of Order No.94 of 2014 reveals that this was only reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner that he was essentially and materially different from the petitioner as promotion was granted to Shakeel Ahmed on the basis of displaying outstanding performance in passing out parade. Respondents have not produced the record. 10. Perusal of Order No.94 of 2014 reveals that this was only reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner that he was essentially and materially different from the petitioner as promotion was granted to Shakeel Ahmed on the basis of displaying outstanding performance in passing out parade. However, this very statement is fallacious as perusal of the order reveals that “who has secured 1st position in the Range classification and 2nd position in outdoor has been assigned job of outstanding performance to command the passing out parade”. Therefore, in recognition of his outstanding performance being recruit-Constable, he was promoted as officially Sg. Constable. 11. Thus, the order of promotion reveals that his promotion is due to his outstanding promotion as recruit-Constable. This is also apparent that from the fact that the order of promotion dated 26.04.1997 and the passing out parade was to be held on 28.04.1997, therefore, the order of promotion could not be in any circumstance in anticipation of his outstanding performance in passing out parade. 12. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered in case titled “United Air Travel Services through its proprietor A.D.M. Anwar Khan vs. Union of India Through Secretary’, ‘2018 AIR (SC) 2264’ wherein in paragraph No.11, it has been held as under:— “11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, rightly drawn out attention to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. V. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405 , to submit that such a plea cannot be accepted. We may note that this is a well settled legal position in many judicial pronouncements of this Court, but it is not necessary to revert to the same. In para 8 of the aforesaid judgment, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J, in his inimitable style states as under:— 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1) Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older”. 13. This Court in “State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Parbhat Singh, ‘1997 K.L.J 311’ wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench while dismissing the appeal of the State has held as under:— “It appears as if the appellants were waiting for the judgment and implemented it, whereas in the present case the appellants have come forward to contest on the same grounds which were available against the colleague of present respondent. Such an approach of the State is not only deplorable, unjustified but also cannot be appreciated to play and apply double standards yardsticks while dealing with similarly situated employees. The learned Single Judge has in the course of his order observed that once the appellants have promoted Sheikh Mahmood to the post of Inspector and implemented the court judgment, the respondent being similarly situated employee is also required to be given the similar treatment in all fairness. No fault can be found with the approach of the learned Single Judge in peculiar circumstances of this case.” 14. Thus, the order of consideration is without any application of mind and since the constable Shakeel Ahmed as well as the petitioner was similarly situated in terms of Rule-385(5) of the Police Rules, similar consideration ought to have been granted to the petitioner and he was wrongly not promoted to the aforesaid post. More so, when another person Manohar Lal on being adjudged as all round best trainee was also given out of turn promotion as Selection Grade Constable for passing out parade. 15. This Court in Om Prakash Vs. More so, when another person Manohar Lal on being adjudged as all round best trainee was also given out of turn promotion as Selection Grade Constable for passing out parade. 15. This Court in Om Prakash Vs. State of J&K, 1986 KLJ 437 has while considering the Police Rules has held as under:— “It is not denied that the rules forming part of the J&K Police Manual have the statutory force which governs the service conditions of person subject to the Police rules.” 16. The petitioner was, thus, entitled for grant of promotion in terms of Rule-385(5) of Police Rules. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. Order No.94 of 2014 dated 10.01.2014 is quashed with a direction to the respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner as Selection Grade Constable retrospectively with effect from the date he became eligible. It is further directed that petitioner be given notional promotion retrospectively and consequential prospective benefits.