- (1.) By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.5.2000 passed by opposite party no.2/ Director General cum Inspector General of Police, U.P. Lucknow thereby rejecting the petitioner's claim for out of turn promotion. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that petitioner, who was working on the post of Sub Inspector in Police Department in the State of U.P. has put forward his claim for out of turn promotion on the following points/ grounds:- 587274-1
(2.) When no need paid, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3759 (SS) of 1996 ( Vijay Kumar Singh Bhadauria Vs. The State of U.P. And others), Vide order dated 14.10.1996, disposed of with the following directions:- "In these circumstances, the State Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, if already not considered, in accordance to law with regard to out of turn promotion within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him." By order dated 9.6.1997 , the case of the petitioner was rejected, challenged by filing Writ Petition No.6807 (SS) of 1997 ( Vijay Kumar Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. And others ) on the ground that he is entitled for out of turn promotion in view of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994, allowed vide order dated 18.2.2000 which on reproduction reads as under:- "The petitioner is claiming out of turn promotion under the government order dated 3.2.1994, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure no.11 to this writ petition. The photo copy of the said government order which has been filed is not very clear but it appears from the reading of paragraph no.3 of that government order that exceptional bravery and gallantry in encounter with notorious terrorist and hardened criminals or their arrest is one of the condition and the other condition is doing dangerous work in discharge of their duty. The word used between these two clauses 'ya' (in hindi) equivalent to 'or'. The case of of the petitioner was recommended by the Sub-ordinate officers but has been rejected by the Committee. It appears from the reading of the order of Committee dated 9.6.1997 Annexure -1 to this writ petition that the Committee has considered only first part of the government Order referred to above and has framed that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of out of turn promotion, under that government order as he has not been involved in encounter or arrest of terrorist or criminals . The Committee has overlooked the second part of the clause 3 of the said government order which provides that in the alternative where dangerous work has been performed in discharge of duty , then also police man can be considered for the benefit under that government order. Events of bravery mentioned can fall within the second clause therefore, the order dated 9.6.1997 Annexure -1 cannot be sustained on account of lack of application of mind by the Committee to the fact whether the said activities of the petitioner' qualify him for the out of turn promotion under the second part of clause -III of the government order dated 3.2.1994.
(3.) Considering these facts, the impugned order dated 9.6.1997, Annexure -1 to this writ petition is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents will consider the case of the petitioner again under the said government order in accordance with aforesaid observations, taking into the account the recommended performance of the petitioner regrading display of exceptional bravery prior or subsequent to the order of the Committee which has been quashed . The decision will be taken within three months from the date on which the certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the respondent no.2. With these directions, this writ petition is allowed.";