JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai, the 3rd respondent herein made in K.Dis.No.190236/NGB.I(2)/2013, dated 26.11.2014 and the endorsement of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, 4th respondent herein made in Rc.No.A2/62544/2014 dated 15.12.2014, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to grant accelerated promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from the date on which the proposal for the same has been submitted by the 4th respondent during the year 1999 with all consequential service and monetary benefits accrued thereon and consequently revise the terminal, retiral and pensionary benefits of the petitioner and disburse all the arrears to the petitioner within a short date.) 1. The order, declining accelerated promotion to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 15.12.2014 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner is the retired Head Constable. The claim for an accelerated promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for his performance of high order and exceptional personal ability in giving information about the bomb blasts by providing infallible intelligence, which led to the arrest of many of the accused, who belonged to Al-Umma Terrorist out fit, who is responsible for the serial bomb blasts in Coimbatore during Feburary, 1998, is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner states that his merits regarding his performance of works were not assessed properly. The evidences including Certificates, Citations and Awards given by the Higher Authorities were also not considered. The petitioner joined as Grade-II Police Constable on 15.09.1972 and promoted to the post of Grade-I Police Constable and thereafter, as Head Constable in the year 1998. The petitioner had voluntarily retired from service on 05.06.2007. 3. He was working as Head Constable in the Traffic Investigation Wing, during the year 1998 at Coimbatore. During February, 1998, a serial bomb blasts took place in Coimbatore City causing serious threat to public life and the V.I.P.s, who were heading to the City for public meeting. As a result of the bomb explosion, around 60 innocent public have lost their life. A Special team was constituted to nab the absconded accused persons, who all are responsible for serial bomb blast. As a result of the bomb explosion, around 60 innocent public have lost their life. A Special team was constituted to nab the absconded accused persons, who all are responsible for serial bomb blast. The petitioner states that by risking his life, he has spent about four months of hard work to move with the people belonging to the terrorists group to nab the accused. Finally based on the information given by the petitioner, the terrorists have been arrested and taken to custody. 4. The petitioner states that he has done an infallible services to the detection of crimes and criminals. Considering his meritorious services, the then City Police Commissioner of Coimbatore has given a citation and the petitioner received several certificates and awards. Thus, the order of rejection without considering the merits is perverse and liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that in letter dated 07.05.1998, issued by the Intelligence Section, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, reveals that hefty money rewards and accelerated promotions would be given to those, who bring information leading to the arrest of accused persons in the bomb blast cases. When such a confidential letter was issued by the Commissioner of Police, it is to be construed as a promise to the Police Officials like that of the petitioner and therefore, their commendable services are to be rewarded by granting accelerated promotion. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the commendation certificates, rewards etc., given to the writ petitioner and made a submission that on such rewards, citations, awards and the news informations were not considered by the authorities competent. 7. The Board constituted for granting accelerated promotion not recommended the cases of few other persons on the ground that it was a team work and therefore, the accelerated promotion need not be granted. Accepting the recommendations of the Board, the Government also issued Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.547, Home Department, dated 16.07.2013, rejecting the claim of the those persons on the ground that Accelerated Promotions Board had not recommended for grant of accelerated promotion and therefore, the claim of those Police Officials cannot be considered. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that those Police Personnels cannot be compared with the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that those Police Personnels cannot be compared with the petitioner. The petitioner has got more awards, citations and rewards by citing the said Government order in G.O.Ms.No.547, the case of the petitioner was rejected. Thus, the authorities have not independently considered the merits of the writ petitioner and therefore, it amounts to non-consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Sant Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd and Others reported in [ (2008) 2 SCC 777 ]. “27. In this background, in view of various decisions noticed above, it will appear that the Court's approach in the matter of invoking the principle of promissory estoppel depends on the facts of each case. But the general principle that emerges is that once a representation has been made by one party and the other party acts on that representation and makes investment and thereafter the other party resiles, such act cannot be stated to be fair and reasonable. When the State Government makes a representation and invites the entrepreneurs by showing various benefits for encouraging to make investments by way of industrial development of the backward areas or the hill areas, and thereafter the entrepreneurs on the representations so made bona fide make investment and thereafter if the State Government resiles from such benefits, then it certainly is an act of unfairness and arbitrariness. Consideration of public interest and the fact that there cannot be any estoppel against a statute are exceptions.” 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that the petitioner was one among the team members constituted to arrest the accused involved in the Coimbatore serial bomb blast case took place in Coimbatore during February 1988. The petitioner along with other members had assisted the Investigation Agency to nab the accused involved in the bomb blast case took place in Coimbatore. The then Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City had recognised the contribution of the petitioner in the investigation by giving him commendation letters etc. The petitioner along with other members had assisted the Investigation Agency to nab the accused involved in the bomb blast case took place in Coimbatore. The then Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City had recognised the contribution of the petitioner in the investigation by giving him commendation letters etc. On the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, the petitioner was awarded with money rewards and rewards such as I.C.R.E.S. (Institute of Criminological Research Education and Services). Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner was ignored is not correct. 11. It is further contended that the meritorious services rendered by the team members including the petitioner in arresting the accused persons were recognised suitably by awarding Tamil Nadu Chief Minster's Police Medal for outstanding devotion to duty on 15.09.1999 in G.O.Ms.No.1345 Home (SC) Department dated 05.10.1999, which include a cash reward of Rs.2,000/-. However, the team members have made a representation to the respondents to grant accelerated promotions to them. The plea of the team members was not considered on the ground that the work executed by the team members were already recognised by awarding Chief Minister's Medal for outstanding devotion to duty. Some of the team members field writ petitions and the High Court in a common order dated 13.10.2011 in W.P.No.30155 of 2008 and 8717 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.30155 to 30188 of 2008 and M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.8717 of 2009, had directed the respondents to consider the cases of 4 Police personnel, including the petitioner with reference to the rules, which were in force on the date of which the work was executed and recommendation were made to pass orders. 12. The 2nd respondent in order to comply with the orders of the High Court convened the Accelerated Promotion Board Meeting on 11.07.2013 as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.468, Home (Police-5) Department, dated 19.03.1996, that was in force during the relevant point of time. The Board took a view that there were insufficient materials available to quantify individual endeavour, as the whole exercise was a team effort. The Board was of the unanimous opinion that the request of the team members including the petitioner in this writ petitioner cannot be considered favourably and thus, rejected the proposal for giving accelerated promotion orders in their G.O.(D) No.547, Home (Police-III) Department, dated 16.07.2013. The Board was of the unanimous opinion that the request of the team members including the petitioner in this writ petitioner cannot be considered favourably and thus, rejected the proposal for giving accelerated promotion orders in their G.O.(D) No.547, Home (Police-III) Department, dated 16.07.2013. The said order was communicated to the petitioner through the 3rd and 4th respondents. 13. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation on 24.10.2013 and on the ground that he has more meritorious records than that of the other team members and therefore, his case is to be considered for accelerated promotion. Again, it was considered by the authorities competent and the authorities found that there is not further reason to consider the case of the writ petitioner separately as the Board itself had considered the case of the team members including the petitioner and rejected claim on the ground that the execution of the entire work was a team work and there was insufficient materials available to quantify individual endeavour. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that accelerated promotion is a concession/award for the purpose of recognising the exemplary services. Accelerated promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Such accelerated promotions are to be granted to the subjective satisfaction of the Competent Board constituted for grant of accelerated promotions. In other words, the Competent Board has to recommend based on the materials and evidences available on record. Once the Board assessed the merits of the case and made a finding, that became final. The power of judicial review to interfere with the findings of the Board is limited. Only if the Board's decision is in violation of the Statutory Rules or tainted with the malafides, but not otherwise. Consideration of the merits are to the subjective satisfaction of the competent authorities of the Board and their assessments to be construed as expert opinion. High Court by exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot make an assessment with reference to the certificates, rewards issued for the performance of the works in Police Department. The Court not being an expert body, can scrutinise the process through which the decision is taken by the competent authorities, but not the decision itself. 15. The Court not being an expert body, can scrutinise the process through which the decision is taken by the competent authorities, but not the decision itself. 15. In the present case, the competent Accelerated Promotion Board considered the claim for accelerated promotion pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and accordingly, formed an opinion that there was insufficient materials available to quantify individual endeavour, as the whole exercise was a team effort. The Board was of the unanimous opinion that the request of the team members including the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be considered favourably and accordingly rejected. Further, the representation submitted by the writ petitioner was also considered and relying on the Board's decision, the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2014. Thus, the case of the writ petitioner was considered by the Board and the Board's decision was relied on by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City for passing the impugned order. When the Competent Accelerated Promotion Board formed an opinion regarding entire works executed as it was a team work and the petitioner was also a part, then the petitioner cannot set out an independent claim for grant of accelerated promotion. 16. Once the Accelerated Promotion Board arrived a conclusion that it was a team work and rejected the cases of all other police officials, who have participated in the investigation work, then the petitioner's case alone cannot be considered separately and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner was rejected by the authorities competent. 17. Regarding the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied on by the petitioner, this Court is of an opinion that the same shall have no application as the facts are incomparable. The principle of promissory estoppel, which is raised by the petitioner in the present case cannot be considered, in view of the fact that consideration for accelerated promotion is the subjective satisfaction of the competent Accelerated Promotion Board. That apart, the petitioner has relied on the letter issued by the Intelligence Section of the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City dated 07.05.1998 and based on such letter, the petitioner cannot claim any right for accelerated promotion. Even presuming that if a right is conferred, the benefit is to be granted only if the authorities competent is satisfied with the merits for the purpose of granting the accelerated promotion. Even presuming that if a right is conferred, the benefit is to be granted only if the authorities competent is satisfied with the merits for the purpose of granting the accelerated promotion. Thus, the judgment is of no avail to the writ petitioner. 18. The assessment of the Competent Accelerated Promotion Board became final and the decision of the Board relied by the 4th respondent cannot be interfered with as there is no infirmity and perversity. Thus, the writ petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. 19. Thus, the Writ Petition fails and stands dismissed. No costs.