ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.8.1998 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), U.P. Lucknow. A mandamus has also been prayed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for accelerated promotion on the post of head constable. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; petitioner was originally appointed as Constable in Civil Police but latter on posted in Special Cell Intelligence Department. While working in the Intelligence Department he got three accused persons and arrested on 16/17.5.1984. A recommendation was made for accelerated promotion under Para 455 of U.P. Police Regulation Act while letter dated-22.5.1984 when petitioner was not promoted, he filed a claim Petition No. 481 which was decided by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 24.10.1997. The claim petition was allowed directing Director General of Police to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Constable under Para 455 of the U.P. Police Regulation Act. In pursuance of the order of Tribunal the Director General of Police passed an order that petitioner is not entitled for promotion under Para 455. The Director General of Police took the view that only constables who are entitled to be promote under Para 455 are those who are not eligible for promotion under Para 454. The said order passed by the Director General of Police has been challenged in the writ petition.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no impediment in consideration of petitioner's promotion under Para 455. He submit that petitioner's case was recommended on account of his exemplary courage for accelerated promotion which could not have been denied on the ground that petitioner was 30 years of age, at the relevant time. He further contended that at the date when the representation was decided petitioner was more than 40 years. He further contends that there is no mention of any particular age in Para 455.;