B.K. Narayana, J. - (1.) REJOINDER affidavit filed today be kept on record.
(2.) HEARD Sri Uttar Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the Director General of Police, P.A.C., Uttar Pradesh rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of out of turn promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's claim for grant of out of turn promotion has been rejected on the ground that the Director General of Police, P.A.C., Uttar Pradesh was not competent to consider and decide the petitioner's claim 'as he was not the controlling authority of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in case the Director General of Police, P.A.C., Uttar Pradesh was conscious of the fact that he was not competent to decide the petitioner's claim, it was incumbent upon him to have referred the matter to the competent authority instead of rejecting the same on merits.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel defending the impugned order has submitted that although the petitioner's claim for grant of out of turn promotion had been rejected by the impugned order, liberty was given to him to approach the competent authority for claiming out of turn promotion and hence no right of the petitioner has been infringed. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.;