JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Petitioner was recruited as a Health Inspector with effect from 7th July, 1957. From 1960, the post of Health Inspector was designated as Sanitary Inspector and petitioner was placed in the Department of Public Health. Under Rule 8(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954, a qualified Sanitary Inspector is entitled to be appointed as Food Inspector. Petitioner acted as Food Inspector until 9-2-1968, when as a result of change of the scheme. Sanitary Inspectors ceased to be Food Inspectors as per Annexure-2. Government prepared a fresh scheme, created 23 posts of Food Inspectors and directed that ?rds of the posts should be filled up by direct recruitment and one third should be filled up by promotion from among Sanitary Inspectors. While the scale of pay of Sanitary Inspectors in the Selection Grade was Rs. 370-550/-, the pay scale of Food Inspectors was Rs. 475-750/-. Pursuant to the decision of the Government, the Director of Health Services called certain Sanitary Inspectors for interview and appointed them as Food Inspectors on 31-12-1973. While making these appointments seniority in the service of Sanitary Inspectors was not kept in view. Petitioner alleges that his case was not considered and his service particulars and character roll entries were not placed for consideration. In the circumstances, the promotion of opposite parties-3, 4 and 5 was contrary to law and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. Petitioner alleged that opposite parties 3 to 5 were junior to him in the cadre of Sanitary Inspector and they could not be appointed unless petitioner was found unsuitable. Petitioner made a representation and when it was not disposed of he came before this Court in O.J.C. No. 430 of 1976. That application was permitted to be withdrawn on the assurance of Counsel for the State Government that petitioner's case would be favourably considered. As petitioner did not succeed to obtain any favourable orders, he has made this application for quashing the promotion of opposite parties 3 to 5 and for a reconsideration of his case for promotion as Food Inspectors. 2. It is unnecessary to refer at length to the stand taken by the opposite parties. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been admitted, inter alia :- "....It is of course true that C.C. Rs. 2. It is unnecessary to refer at length to the stand taken by the opposite parties. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been admitted, inter alia :- "....It is of course true that C.C. Rs. of some Sanitary Inspectors including the petitioner were not made available for being placed before the Selection Board in spite of efforts to get the same. Since it was not possible to wait for an indefinite period for receipt of C.C. Rs. the selection of candidates for appointment as Food Inspector was finalised and appointments were made as per the impugned order. While finalising the selection the careers of candidates whose C.C. Rs. were not available were taken to be average and marks were also given to them accordingly ................" 3. The admission of the position as stated above clearly indicates that the petitioner's case along with many others whose C.C. Rs. were not available to the Selection Board had not been properly considered. Character Rolls are maintained by the Establishment where the employees work and non-availability of the document at the relevant time before the Selection Board was a position for which petitioner had no responsibility. It was incumbent upon the authorities to call for the same, look into the contents thereof and decide the claim of promotion dispassionately. It was not open to the Selection Board to proceed on the footing that the service career was average in respect of the employees whose C.C. Rs. were not before the Board. Counsel for the State finds it difficult to sustain the action of the Selection Board and concedes that the petitioner has scope for genuine grievance. In the circumstances, we would quash the impugned promotion of opposite parties 3 to 5 and direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to reconsider the question of promotion from 1973 in accordance with law. 4. There would be no direction for costs. N.K. Das, J. - I agree. Final Result : Allowed