Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, holding brief of Sri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 24.6.2014 is wholly arbitrary and illegal for the following reasons :

(i) The Government Order dated 7.6.2014 is prospective in nature and since the petitioner had moved the application dated 27.12.2012 through his wife for out of turn promotion and as such his case should have been considered in the light of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994;

(ii) The petitioner has shown courage during the performance of his duty as a police officer and, therefore, he is entitled for out of turn promotion;

(iii) Government Order dated 7.6.2014 shall apply prospectively and it shall not apply to cases pending consideration, as the impugned order does not indicate that there was no recommendation in favour of the petitioner for out of turn promotion.

3. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Writ-A No. 50782 of 2014, Mahaveer Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others and other connected writ petitions, decided on 4.9.2015.

4. Learned standing counsel submits that the judgement in the case of Mahaveer Singh and others (supra) is distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as in that case recommendations were made for out of turn promotion by the competent authority much prior to the Government Order dated 7.6.2014.

5. He submits that the Government Order dated 7.6.2014 is the policy decision of the State Government, which cannot be interfered with and which is not even under challenge in the present writ petition. He further submits that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued in the absence of any legally protected or judicially enforceable subsisting right for out of turn promotion which is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Government Order No. 665(1)/Chh: Pu-1-24-93 Lucknow dated 3.2.1994 under which the petitioners are claiming out of turn promotion, is reproduced below:

^^'kklukns'k

mŸkj izns'k 'kklu

x`g ¼iqfyl½&665¼1½@NŒiqŒ&1&24&93

y[kuÅ

fnukad % Qjojh 3] 1994

dk;kZy; Kki

v/kksgLrk{kjh dks mŸkj izns'k iqfyl cy ds ,sls vkj{kh vkSj mifujh{kd@IykVwu dek.Mj dk] ftUgksaus vnE; lkgl vkSj 'kkS;Z dk izn'kZu fd;k gks] eukscy ,oa lkgl c<+kus ds fy;s dze'k% eq[; vkj{kh in ij vkSj fujh{kd@dEiuh dek.Mj ij fu;qDr djus ds laca/k esa fuEufyf[kr vkns'k nsus dk funsZ'k gqvk gSA

¼1½ vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z izn'kZu djus okys iqfyl cy ds mDr dfeZ;ksa dks ;FkkfLFkfr vkj{kh ls eq[; vkj{kh rFkk mifujh{kd ls fujh{kd@dEiuh dek.Mj ds fu%loxhZ; in ij fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxkA

¼2½ izR;sd foŸkh; o”kZ ds fy;s] ;FkkfLFkfr eq[; vkj{kh ;k fujh{kd@dEiuh dek.Mj ds fu%loxhZ; inksa dk l`tu jkT; ljdkj }kjk iqfyl egkfujh{kd] mŸkj izns'k ds izLrko ij fd;k tk ldsxkA

¼3½ iqfyl cy ds ,sls vkj{kh ;k mifujh{kd@IykVwu dek.Mj vnE; lkgl vkSj 'kkS;Z dk izn'kZu djus okys iqfyl dehZ Hkh dksfV esa vk;saxs] ftUgksusa dq[;kr vkradoknh ;k t?kU; vijk/kh ds lkFk esa eqBHksM+ esa ;k mudh fxjrkjh esa lkgl vkSj 'kkZ;Z iznf'kZr fd;k gks ;k vius drZO; ikyu ds nkSjku tksf[kr Hkjk dk;Z fd;k gksA

¼4½ mDr fu%loxhZ; inksa ij fu;qfDr iqfyl egkfuns'kd ds iwokZuqeksnu ds mijkUr fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk dh tk;sxhA

¼5½ ;g vkns'k bl fo”k; ij le; le; ij tkjh vkns'kksa esa fdlh vU; ckr ds gksrs gq;s Hkh izHkkoh gksxkA

¼6½ ;g vkns'k rkRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA

la[;k&665¼1½@NŒiqŒ&1&24@93

rn~fnukfdr

izfrfyfi % fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %

1- iqfyl egkfuns'kd] mŸkj izns'k] y[kuÅA

2- vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd] mŸkj izns'k iqfyl eq[;ky;] bykgkcknA

3- leLr iqfyl egkfuns'kd] tksUlA

4- leLr iqfyl mi&egkfuns'kd] jsUtA

5- vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd] ih0,0lh0 y[kuÅA

8. All