Judgment:
Sushil Harkauli and M. Chaudhary, JJ.
1. We judge ourselves by what we think we are capable of doing while others judge us by what we have actually done.
2. The petitioner thinks that he has performed an act of exemplary courage and valour and therefore he seeks out of turn promotion in the police service.
3. The authorities by the impugned order dated 17.3.2002 have held that the petitioner has not done any act which can be said to be even courageous, what to say of exemplary courage and valour.
4. According to the impugned order the petitioner was one of the members of police party of 16 policemen who had surrounded two criminals. The criminals being surrounded by such large police party were feeling helpless and therefore surrendered.
5. Further according to the impugned order the large amount of arms and ammunition said to have been recovered from two criminals was sufficient for a long drawn out encounter. No such encounter appears to have take place. Further, no person was injured on either side and apparently because of collective pressure of such a large police party the accused surrendered.
6. Again the impugned order states that the exact role of the petitioner in this episode is also not clear. Therefore, the impugned order has refused to accept the petitioner's assessment of himself.
7. We find no such infirmity in the finding of fact recorded by the impugned order as would call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.