JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. The Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this petition on behalf of petitioner no."2 who has already been promoted and as such he is permitted to delete his name from the array of parties.
3. The petitioner is a Sub Inspector in the Civil Police and while posted at Pillukhwa in Ghaziabad on 11. 11.1995 was involved in fearce gun battle and encounter of a history sheeter and notorious criminal namely Pappu son of Sukha Rajpoot alongwith his gang The Police party consisted of the petitioner, Sub inspector (here-in-after referred to as S.I Pooran Singh Me Mera and Head Constable Indra Singh Mallik amongst others. They were able to gun down four notorious criminals while a Station Officer was also killed but Sri Pooran Singh Mehra and Sri Indra Singh Mallik received injuries in the encounter. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad examined the entire episode and after continuing the roles played by each individual involved in the encounter and finding that they had shown exemplary courage and bravery, he recommended the cases of the petitioner S.I. Sri Kripal Singh, S.I. Sri Surendra Singh Yadav, S.I. Sri Pooran Singh Mehra. and Head Constable Sri Indra Singh Mallik. for out of turn promotion through his recommendatory letter dated 10.10.1996. This recommendation was processed and approved by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Deputy Genera Inspector of Police and Inspector General of Police. However, the committee empowered to consider such cases rejected the recommendation in respect of all the personnel through its order dated 17.11.1997.
4. Sri Pooran Singh Mehra challenged the aforesaid cancellation order through writ petition No. 10528 of 1998 where a learned Single Judge vide a detailed and reasoned judgment dated 18.9.2002 allowed the writ petition and quashed the" said order directing the respondents to reconsider it afresh in the light of the observation made in the judgment. In pursuance thereof, vide order dated 9,1.2003, S.I. Sri Pooran Singh Mehra, and Head Constate Sri Indra Singh Mallik, were granted out of turn promotion to the post of Inspector and Sub Inspector, respectively, in pursuance of the government Order dated, 3.2,1994. The petitioner has challenged the inaction of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner while granting the aforesaid two promotions. Thus, this petition.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the role played by the petitioner in the aforesaid encounter was far more exemplary than that of Pooran Singh Mehra and Indra Singh Mallik but no reasons have been assigned either in the order granting promotion to them or in the counter affidavit as to why his claim was allegedly considered and rejected.
6. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the case of all personnel involved in the encounter on 11.11.1995 was considered but none was found fit for promotion on the basis of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 except for Pooran Singh Mehra and Indra Singh Mallik.
7. From the record available before the Court, there is only one citation which considers the entire encounter and fixes the different role played by different police personnel and that is the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The name of the petitioner has been placed at serial no. 1 of the recommendation where it is mentioned that the petitioner gunned down two gangsters and was associated in gunning down a third gangster. In the case of Pooran Singh Mehra and Indra Singh Mallik, it states that they helped in gunning down one gangster even though they were hurt during the encounter. 1 he contention of the petitioner is correct and there is absolutely no reason shown either in the order dated 17.11.1997 or in the promotion order of Pooran Singh Mehra or in the counter affidavit why the claim has been rejected in spite of the citation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. It is apparent from the citation that the petitioner was involved since the very first part of the encounter which engaged the gangster since 5.00 A.M. in the morning and he eliminated one of the gangster on the very first assault. He was then detailed with another constable and Head Constable to take fresh position when the criminals changed their position and he kept them engaged in the gun battle to enable fresh re-enforcement to arrive at about 7.30 A.M. This re-enforcement consisted also of S.I. Pooran Singh Mehra The petitioner again gunned down another gangster on subsequent assault and thereafter the petitioner, S.I. Pooran Singh Mehra and others jointly gunned down one more criminal No doubt, S.I. Pooran Singh Mehra was injured, but merely because he was injured, that by itself cannot be a ground to deny promotion to the petitioner. From the citation, it is evident that the petitioner took foremost position during the encounter. Further, copy of the injury report, which is annexed, shows that the injury to Pooran Singh Mehra and Indra Singh Mallik was superficial and the two were discharged within 24 hours from the hospital. If the conduct: of S.I. Pooi an Singh Mehra and Head Constable Indra Singh Mallik was exemplary, the petitioner's conduct was more exemplary for the benefit of out of' turn promotion. If the authorities found it appropriate to grant out of turn promotion to S.I. Pooran Singh Mehra and Head Constable Indra Singh Mallik, they ought to have granted promotion to the petitioner also. As already stated hereinabove there is absolutely nothing to show that the conduct of the petitioner during the encounter was in any way inferior to the other two and thus discrimination without any ground cannot be allowed and the petitioner would also be entitled for out of turn promotion under the Government Order dated 3.2.1994.
8. For the reasons given hereinabove and for the reasons given in urn petition No. 10528 of 1998 Pooran Singh Mehra v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 18.9.2002, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.11.1997 is hereby quashed. The Director General, U.P. and the relevant Committee is directed to consider grant of out of turn promotion to the petitioner on the basis of the observations made above. The exercise may be completed within a period of one month from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.