Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the Tribunal’s judgment by which Tribunal had allowed the claim petition directing the petitioner to reconsider the claim of claimant respondent for out of turn promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of Inspector. Brief matrix of the case is discussed hereinafter.

2.The claimant respondent is Sub Inspector of U.P. Police was Incharge of Special Operation Group Police (in short hereinafter referred as SOG). On 17.4.2000 after receiving information with regard to arrival of two terrorist/hardened criminal two teams were constituted to apprehend them. One headed by claimant respondent and the other by Shri P.C.Sharma, near Green Park in Kanpur Nagar. Both the team entered into encounter with the terrorist. The team led by the claimant respondents Shri S.S.Solanki had successfully prevented to run away one of terrorist during encounter. Thus one out of two terrorist was killed. An FIR dated 18.4.2000 was lodged by Shri P.C.Sharma. In the FIR role of team led by the claimant respondents has been narrated as under :

ÞQk;fjax dj jgs cnek'k us iwjc dh vksj c<+us dk Á;kl fd;k rks iwjc dh vksj ,l-vkbZ-,l-,l- lksyUdh o mudh ikVhZ us Qk;j dj cnek'k dk jkLrk jksd fy;kA iqfyl ny dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls Qk;j dj jgs cnek'k us Jh lksyUdh ds usr`Ro esa iwjc ls ?ksjs gq, iqfyl ny dk ?ksjk rksM+dj Jh lksyUdh o muds iqfyl ny ij lh/kk Qk;j fd;k] cnek'k dks fxj¶rkj djus dh fu;r ls fcuk vkMj ds vkxs c<+ jgs Jh lksyUdh ds Ás.kknk;d usr`Ro esa iqfyl ny ij iqu% Qk;j fd;k] ftlls Jh lksyUdh dh ikVhZ ds dk0&johUnz flag] dk0&ujsUnz flag] dk0&iIiw yky xksfy;ksa ls t[eh gks x;sA iqfyl ds ?ksjk c<+rk ns[k t[eh dkUlVscyksa dh tku cpkus ds fy;s eq> ,l-vks- us o ,l-vkbZ- Jh lksyUdh us viuh tku ijokg u djrs gq, fcuk le; xok;s Qk;j djrk gqvk Hkkx jgk cnek'k dh vksj fcuk vkMj ds ftUnk idM+us dh fu;r ls cnek'k ds utnhd igaqps gh Fks fd cnek'k us ,l-vkbZ- Jh lksyUdh dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls dkQh utnhd ls Qk;j fd;kA vkRej{kkFkZ o drZO;ikyukFkZ eq>s ,l-vks- us fjokYoj ls o ,l-vkbZ- Jh lksyUdh us ,0ds0&47 ls o iqfyl ny us cnek'k dh vksj foo'k gksdj Qk;j fd;sA iqfyl }kjk pyk;h x;h xksfy;ksa ls og cnek'k /kjk'kkbZ gks x;k vko';d lrdZrk cjrrs gq, mlds utnhd igaqps rks ns'kk fd cnek'k ne rksM+ pqdk gSAÞ

3. For the aforesaid act of bravery SSP Kanpur Nagar recommended for out of turn promotion. The recommendation of SSP Kanpur was placed before the Committee consisting of DIG of the Range and two other officers. The Committee was agreed with the recommendation of SSP Kanpur and sent the proposal to Director General of Police for out of turn promotion through IG Zone. IG Zone being agreed with the proposal had forwarded the same to the State Government.

4.The report of the Committee was not accepted by DGP on 1.8.2006 in terms of report of State Level Committee. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the DGP, the claimant respondents had filed Writ Petition No. 7212 (SS) of 2006 by order dated 17.1.2007. High Court had quashed the decision of Committee dated 5.7.2006 alongwith consequential order dated 1.8.2006 passed by the DGP and directed to reconsider the claimant’s case for out of turn promotion.

5. It was held by this Court that the Committee in fact not considered the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority and there is no discussion with regard to reasoning given in recommendation in favour of claimant. The Committee had ignored the material on record. The High Court held that though there should be subjective decision by the authority but it shall be necessary that a subjective decision should be based on objective consideration of the valid material which was not done. Relevant portion from the judgment and order dated 17.1.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7271(SS) of 2006 filed with the petition is reproduced as under :

“Upon going through the report of the Committee dated 5-7-2006, it is found that the Committee has