JUDGMENT T. R. Manila, J.—There does not appear to be must controversy regarding the facts which have led to the tiling of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner, 2. The petitioner joined as Music Teacher in the grade of Rs. 80-5-150-EB 7/2-185 with effect from 16-5-1931 in the erstwhile State of Bilaspur vide order dated 175-1951 issued by the Education Officer, Bilaspur State, found at annexure ‘B’ Later on vide order dated 23-7-1952 found at annexure ‘C’ he was promoted to the higher selection grade of Rs. 140-10-21 with effect from 22-7-1952. Subsequently vide order No. 207 dated 2-12-1952 issued by the Chief Commissioner of the erstwhile State of Bilaspur, copy found at annexure ‘D’ the petitioner was appointed to officiate as Lecturer in the Government Intermediate College, Bilaspur with effect from 1-12-1952. The Punjab University also accorded its approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer vide its letter No. Misc. 9692 dated 21-3-1953. 3. With the integration of the erstwhile State of Bilaspur with the Himachal Pradesh State, the services of the petitioner were also transferred to Himachal Pradesh State and he was then posted as Lecturer in the Government College Chamba by the order of the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, dated 15-12-1959 in the pay scale of Rs. 200-10-300/l6-400/2f0-440. 4. In the year 1960 the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh appears to have circulated a tentative seniority list of Junior Lecturers of which cadre the petitioner was a member and in that proposed list of seniority the petitioner had been placed at S. No. 36. His date of appointment had been mentioned as 27-11-1958 instead of his actual date of appointment which, according to the petitioner, was 2-12-1951. The petitioner made a representation against this seniority list and this representation was still pending when in January 1962 the respondents issued a notification dated 22-11-1962 (copy found annexure L) vide which promotions of Lecturers from Glass III to Gazetted Class II posts in the grade of Rs. 250-25-550/25-750 with effect from 12-1-1962 were ordered. These promotions were ordered on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee which made its recommendations solely on the basis of the Annual Confidential Reports of the concerned Lecturers. 5. 250-25-550/25-750 with effect from 12-1-1962 were ordered. These promotions were ordered on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee which made its recommendations solely on the basis of the Annual Confidential Reports of the concerned Lecturers. 5. Certain representations were made against these promotions and after consideration thereof the aforesaid promotions were quashed vide notification dated 16-4-1962 copy found at annexure ‘L-l’ The aforesaid promotions were cancelled as the criteria taken into consideration for effecting such promotions was net approved by the Lieutenant Governor the then Administrator of Himachal Pradesh. 6. After quashing the promotions made in January, 1962 a decision was taken by the Himachal Pradesh Administration that in the matter of promotions of Lecturers primary importance be given to the teaching ability of the Lecturers as reflected in the University results of their respective subjects. The results of the last six years including the latest results were to be taken into consideration for this purpose. It was further decided that roughly 70% marks were assigned to the results and 30% marks to other factors, like good moral character, good conduct and behaviour, co-operation with the authorities and dealings with the colleagues and students. 7 Another Departmental Promotion Committee was then constituted in September, 1962 to recommend fresh names for promotion on the basis of he revised criteria for such promotions as referred to above. On the recommendations of this D. P. C. notification dated 18-9-1962 copy found at annexure L-2 was issued vide which the following persons were promoted with effect from li-9-1962: 1. Shri B. R. Bhardwaj 2. Shri K- L. Dhar 3. Shri Bidhi Singh 4. Shri Dharam Pal Sharma 5. Shri Ranjit Tirtha 6. Shri A. R, Sharma 7. Shri Pritam Singh 8. Shri Som Nath 9. Shri Inder Singh 10. Shri K. R. Nadda The petitioner was considered for promotion neither in January, 1962 nor in September, 1962 as his proper seniority had not been fixed till then and according to the tentative seniority then allotted to him, he was not even eligible for such promotion. 8. After these promotions were effected, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 20-10-1962 issued by the Director of Education copy found at annexure K that the Lieutenant Governor had considered his representation and had passed orders that the petitioners seniority be restored to him even after his reversion by the Chief Commissioner, Bilaspur in the year 1954. 8. After these promotions were effected, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 20-10-1962 issued by the Director of Education copy found at annexure K that the Lieutenant Governor had considered his representation and had passed orders that the petitioners seniority be restored to him even after his reversion by the Chief Commissioner, Bilaspur in the year 1954. It was further conveyed to the petitioner that necessary action was being taken to give proper seniority etc. to him. As a consequence of this letter the petitioner was given date of appointment as 1-12-1952 and date of confirmation as 10-12-1957 and his seniority was fixed above Shri Som Nath and below Shri Pritam Singh who were promoted vide notification dated 18-9-1962 referred to above. The petitioners case for promotion with effect from 11-9-1962, the date on which his juniors, namely, Sharvshri Som Nath and K. R. Nadda were promoted, however, was never considered by the respondents. 9. The grievance of the petitioner was that although in view of his length cf service in the cadre and his seniority therein, he was eligible to be considered for promotion along with the ten persons who were actually promoted in September, 1962, he had been discriminated against for such promotion for no fault of his. He could not be considered in September, 1962 only because his proper seniority had not been fixed till then. In case his seniority had been fixed in time, he would have been considered for promotion arid actually promoted along with others with effect from 11-9-1962 on the basis of his University results and other factors which were then taken into consideration. The petitioner accordingly represented to the respondents that he be considered for promotion with effect from 11-9-1962 but no action was taken by the respondents on his representation. 10. The petitioner was then obliged to approach this Court with his Civil Wr t Petition No, 72 of 1967 wherein he claimed a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider him for promotion as senior Lecturer (Class II Gazetted) along with other persons who had been promoted on or after 11-9-1962 and give him all the benefits flowing there from. This writ petition was allowed vide order of this Court dated October 303 1972. This writ petition was allowed vide order of this Court dated October 303 1972. The operative part of the judgment reads like this: "In the circumstances there appears to be some substance in the grievance of the petitioner which obviously calls for consideration at the hands of respondent No. 1 who is the appointing authority of the petitioner. As the representations made by the petitioner are stated by respondent No. 2 to be still under consideration by respondent No. 1, the only relief which the petitioner can legitimately as for is that respondent No. 1, should consider the petitioners representations with regard to his claim for promotion as a senior lecturer (Class II Gazetted) vis-a-vis the claims of all persons already promoted to that grade on and after 11-9-62. It is ordered accordingly". 11. After the decision of Writ Petition No. 72 of 1967 referred to above the petitioners case was considered for promotion with effect from September, 1962 by a Departmental Promotion Committee on 26-11-1970. This D. P. C. which comprised of the Director of Education. Secretary Education and Under Secretary, Education, after considering the character rolls of all the persons who were promoted as a result of the D. P. C. held in September, 1962 as also of the petitioner, rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion. 12. The petitioners grievance now is that the decision of the D. P. C. dated 26-11-1970 finding the petitioner unfit for promotion is arbitrary, ultra vires and illegal. The recommendations of this D. P. C. had been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds in the writ petition but at the time of hearing, the challenge was restricted to the ground that this D. P. C. had not followed the criterion which had been followed by the earlier D. P. C. held in September, 1962 inasmuch as whereas the earlier D. P. C. had mainly taken into consideration the University results of the Lecturers in their respective subjects for the last six years (70% marks) and other factors like good moral character etc. (30% marks), the D. P. C. held in November, 1970 which purported to consider the case of the petitioner with effect from September 1962, took into consideration only the A C. Rs. of the concerned persons of the last three years. (30% marks), the D. P. C. held in November, 1970 which purported to consider the case of the petitioner with effect from September 1962, took into consideration only the A C. Rs. of the concerned persons of the last three years. According to the petitioner, his University results had always been cent per cent right from 1955 till the date when his name should have been considered, that is, September 1962, as would be apparent from annexure TO and in case the same yard-stick had been applied in his case as had been applied in the case of the persons promoted in September 1962 viz. University results, he must have been promoted along with the ten persons promoted vide annexure L-2. By applying different considerations in the matter of promotion of the petitioner from those applied in the case of other persons both senior and junior to him who were promoted in 1962, the respondents have clearly discriminated against the petitioner in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. 13. In the fact of the decision given by .this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, being C. W. P. No. 72 of 1967, the respondents could not dispute the claim of the petitioner that he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade of senior Lecturer (Class II Gazetted) with effect from 11-9-1962 along with his other colleagues, some of whom were junior to the petitioners and who were not only considered for such promotion by the D, P. C. constituted in September 1962 but actually promoted vide annexure L-2. The contention of the respondents, however, is that the case of the petitioner for such promotion with effect from 11-9-1962 vis-a-vis all the persons promoted vide annexure L-2 was actually considered on 26-11-1970 by a D. P. C. specially constituted for the purpose but since the petitioner was not found fit for promotion by such D. P. C. he could not be promoted with effect from 11-9-1962. The petitioners claim for promotion thus having been duly considered and rejected, he is not now entitled to any relief. 14. The petitioners claim for promotion thus having been duly considered and rejected, he is not now entitled to any relief. 14. Now it is an admitted position that as in September 1962, immediately before the issue of the promotion order annexure L-2, the petitioner and his colleagues promoted vide annexure L-2 were all similarly placed in service and all of them were then equally eligible for promotion. The petitioner, however, was then singled out and his case for promotion was not put up for consideration before the D. P. C. which considered and recommended the cases for promotion of the persons whose names find mention in annexure L-2. It was thus a clear case c f discrimination against the petitioner who had a fundamental right of being considered for promotion along with all others who had been considered in September 1962. This right of the petitioner was recognized in C. W. P. No. 72 of U61 and that is why the respondents constituted a special D. P. C. in November, 1970 for considering the case of the petitioner for his promotion with effect from 11-9-62. 15. From what has been stated above, it would follow that in order to ensure to the petitioner equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion, as guaranteed by Article 16 cf the Constitution, it is essential that his case for promotion is considered with effect from 11-9-62 vis-a-vis all those persons who were promoted with effect from that date. This necessarily implies that the case of the petitioner should be considered in the light of the same set of rules, directions, guidelines and other considerations which were followed by the D. P. C. on whose recommendations the promotion orders annexure L-2 were issued. 16. In order to ascertain whether the considerations which prevailed with the D. P. C. constituted in November, 70 while considering the case of the petitioner were the same as prevailed with the earlier D. P. C. constituted in September 1962 and which considered the cases of the persons promoted vide annexure L-2, it is desirable rather necessary to advert to the Minutes of both these D. P. Cs. 17. The file containing the Minutes of the D. P. C. which met on 4-9-1962 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary was produced in Court by the respondents. 17. The file containing the Minutes of the D. P. C. which met on 4-9-1962 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary was produced in Court by the respondents. It is considered expedient to extract the following words from the Minutes of this D. P. C. which would show the considerations which prevailed with this D. P. C. for making its recommendations: "As directed by the Lieut. Governor in his orders quashing the previous promotions, the Departmental Promotion Committee gave primary importance to the teaching ability of the lecturers as reflected in the University results of their respective subjects. The results of the last 6 years including the latest results were taken into consideration for this purpose. The norm for determining the quality of the results of the lecturer concerned was the average university pass percentage in the subjects concerned. Roughly 70% marks were assigned to the results and 30% marks to other factors like good moral character, good conduct and behaviour, co-operation with the authorities and dealings with the colleagues and students. On this basis the Departmental Promotion Committee recommends the following 10 lecturers for promotion to Class II Gazetted". I8 . The Minutes of the D. P. C. which met on 26-11-70 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from September, 1962 may now be reproduced: "In accordance with High Court Judgment in C. W. P. 72 of 1967 the respondent No. 1 was asked to consider the case of Shyam Sunder for promotion on 9th September, 1962. Accordingly the D. P. C. met on the 26th of November 1970 and considered the cases of all the persons who were promoted as a result of the meeting of D P. C. held in September, 1972. The C. Rs. of the following persons were examined and classification yearwise were given as under: 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 Overall Assessment 1. Shri S. R. Bhardwaj OS. O.S. OS. O.S. 2. Shri K. L. Dhar V.G. G. V.G. V.G. 3. Shri Bidhi Singh Good VG. G. G. 4. Shri D. P. Sharma Fair G. V.G. G. 5. Shri A. R. Sharma Fair G. G. G. 6. Shri Som Nath Sharma G. G. V.G. G. 7. Shri Inder Singh V.G. V.G. V.G V.G. 8. Shri K. R. Nadha V.G. V.G. V.G V.G. 9. Shri S. S. (Pet) G. G. G. G. 10. G. G. 4. Shri D. P. Sharma Fair G. V.G. G. 5. Shri A. R. Sharma Fair G. G. G. 6. Shri Som Nath Sharma G. G. V.G. G. 7. Shri Inder Singh V.G. V.G. V.G V.G. 8. Shri K. R. Nadha V.G. V.G. V.G V.G. 9. Shri S. S. (Pet) G. G. G. G. 10. Shri K. D. Gupta V.G. V.G. V.G. V.G. The following 4 persons who were junior to Shri Sham Sunder were promoted in accordance with the proceedings of D. P. C. held in September 1962: 1. Som Nath Sharma 2. Inder Singh 3. K. R. Nadha 4. Shri K. D. Gupta. Promotion to the post of Senior Lecturers on the basis of selection i. e merit-cum-seniority, Sarvshri K. D. Gupta, K. R. Nadha and Inder Singh have all secured an assessment of V, G. and have, therefore, justly superseded Shri S. S. whose categorisation is only good. The overall categorisation of Shri Som Nath is good even though he has secured V. Good entry for the year 1962. The seniority of Shri Som Nath Sharma is at No. 11 whereas that of S. S. is at No. 10. However, the D. P. C. in 1962 also took into account the examination results and in these Shri Som Nath Sharma has consistently excelled and his examination results have been much better than the results of S. S. He, therefore, has also correctly superseded Shri Shyam Sunder as 70% emphasis was placed by the September 1962 D. P. C. on examination results and 30% on other factors. The examination results of Shri Shyam Sunder were below the average University results for the year 1961-62, whereas the examination results of Som Nath Sharma was consistently above the average University results. Sd/- G. L. Sharma Sd/- R, P. Gupta Sd/S. L. Taiwar.. Director Secy. Edu. U/S Edu......." On a bare reading of the relevant portion of the Minutes of the D. P. C. held in September i962 would show that the main factors which prevailed with that D. P. C. in making its recommendations for promotion to the post of senior Lecturers were the University results for the last six years of the concerned Lecturer. The norm was as to whether such results were above or below the University pass percentage and if so by how much. The norm was as to whether such results were above or below the University pass percentage and if so by how much. Roughly 70% marks were assigned by the D. P. C to this consideration and the remaining 30% marks to other factors like good moral character, behaviour etc. of the concerned official. 19. In the case of the D. P. C. which held its meeting on 26-11-1970 to consider the case of the petitioner with effect from September 1962 it is obvious that this D. P. C. never took into consideration the University results of any of the Lecturers whose cases were considered along with the petitioner. This D. P. C. considered only the A. C Rs of the Lecturers for the last three years, that is. for 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. After considering the A. C. Rs. these Lecturers were classified as outstanding very good, good and fair. The criterion adopted by this D. P. C. was the same as adopted by the D. P. C. which had held its meeting in January 1962 and whose recommendations were later on quashed vide notification dated 16-4-1962 found at annexure L4. These A. C. Rs deserved no consideration whatsoever in view of the order dated 24-3-1962 passed by the Lieut. Governor while directing cancellation of the earlier promotions made in January 1962 on the basis of such A. C. Rs The then Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh, who was Chairman of the D. P. C. which had made recommendations in January 1962 had himself recommended to the Lieut. Governor in his note dated 2?-3-l-62 as under: "The recommendations of the D. P. C, which I may mention was presided over by my own self, may not be accepted. In future, promotion to senior lecturer posts may be made on the basis of qualifications of a junior lecturer primarily as a teacher and the best evidence of the teaching acilities of a lecturer is the result of his clas9. The Director cf Education should, therefore, Issue orders that in making entries in the character rolls of the teacher a mention must be of the results shown by him in the last examination. The Director cf Education should, therefore, Issue orders that in making entries in the character rolls of the teacher a mention must be of the results shown by him in the last examination. The D. P. C. should hold its meeting again, reconsider the promotion of teachers on the lines indicated above The Lieut, Governor thereafter made the following observations on the said note of the Chief Secretary; "1 entirely agree with the views expressed above by the Chief Secretary. Some of the aggrieved teachers had also occasion to meet me during my tour. Obviously, the best way of judging the abilities of a teacher is the result shown by him in the University examinations. 1 will, however, like to modify the above proposal of the Chief Secretary to this extent that even in cases where a teacher does not represent and there is an adverse entry about the teaching abilities of a teacher, the percentage of his resu Its in the University examination may be ascertained by the Director of Education and the entry expunged if it is found to be unjustified". These observations of the then Chief Secretary and the then Lieut. Governor make it clear that till 1962 there was no system of mentioning the results of the teachers in their A. C. Rs. and that the A. C. Rs. as such were not to be attached much importance. The D. P. C. which met in November 1970 and which considered only the A. C. Rs. thus did not take into consideration the University results of the past six years of the concerned Lecturers and, therefore, it is not possible to say that the case of the petitioner for his promotion with effect from September 1C62 has been validly considered visa-vis the other Lecturers who were actually promoted in September 1^62. It need hardly be emphasized that Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens equality of opportunity in the matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. It is by now well settled that the term appointment* used in Art. 16 includes appointment by promotion. The equality of opportunity so guaranteed must, of course, be real and not merely an illusory one. It is by now well settled that the term appointment* used in Art. 16 includes appointment by promotion. The equality of opportunity so guaranteed must, of course, be real and not merely an illusory one. In order to ensure equality of opportunity in the matters of employment or appointment under the State in the real sense, it is necessary that all the eligible persons are assessed with the same yard-stick. When different yard-sticks are applied for assessing the suitability for promotion of different public servants, all being placed alike in the matter of their service, it would meet out a clear case of discrimination in favour of some and against the others. In such circumstances, it just cannot be said that all of them had been afforded equality of opportunity in the matter of their promotion within the meaning of Article 16 of the Constitution. 20. The grievance of the petitioner that he has been discriminated against in the matter of his promotion, therefore, appears to be genuine inasmuch as different factors were taken into consideration in the matter of his promotion than these which were considered at the time of promotions made in September 1962. The petitioners case thus deserves to be considered with effect from September 1962 in the light of the same considerations and guidelines which prevailed with the D. P. C. held in September 1962. 21. This petition is accordingly allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the senior Lecturer (Class II Gazetted) with effect from 11-9-1962 vis-a-vis all the persons who were promoted vide annexure L-2 by applying the same considerations and guidelines as were applied by the D. P. C. held in September 1962 and on whose recommendations the notification dated 18-9-1962 found at annexure L-2 was issued. Petition allowed. -