JUDGMENT A. N. Dikshita, J. - By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 not to declare the result of the selection held on 23-7-1984 as well as for a direction to consider the case of the petitioner along with the other Excise Inspectors for promotion to the post of Excise Superintendent and to decide the representations of the petitioner (annexures 2, 4 and 7 to the petition) at the earliest. 2. Briefly stated the facts as set out in the petition are. The petitioner is working as an Excise Inspector in the Department of U.P. Excise having been recruited directly to the post on 22-6-1961. During his posting as Excise Inspector in Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur, the petitioner was awarded adverse entries in his character roll for the periods 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 which were communicated to him on various dates. The petitioner made representations against the aforesaid adverse entries. Such representations are still pending and have not yet been decided by the respondents. However, in spite of the adverse entries for three consecutive years the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from the year 1978 by an order passed sometime in 1982. 3. A selection for the posts of Excise Superintendents took place on 2-8-1983 but the petitioner's suitability for promotion was not considered owing to the adverse remarks awarded to him and which could not be wiped off due to non-consideration of the petitioner's representations. Twenty-four posts were to be filled by promotion. Out of these only 14 posts were filled. Amongst these promotees 7 persons were senior to the petitioner and 7 persons were junior to the petitioner. In the gradation list dated 31-13-1982 the petitioner was placed at serial No. 141. Further two more persons were promoted and these two also were junior to the petitioner. Again a selection committee held its deliberations on 23-7-1984 to consider for second time the matter of depertmental promotion from the posts of Excise Inspectors to the posts of Excise Superintendents. The petitioner was again not considered by the selection committee due to the adverse entries in his character roll against which representations were made but were pending. Again a selection committee held its deliberations on 23-7-1984 to consider for second time the matter of depertmental promotion from the posts of Excise Inspectors to the posts of Excise Superintendents. The petitioner was again not considered by the selection committee due to the adverse entries in his character roll against which representations were made but were pending. The petitioner's grievance is that he having been allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar was bound to be considered by the selection committee for promotion to the posts of Excise Superintendent. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Justification has been claimed for awarding adverse entries to the petitioner for the periods 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 in view of the poor performance of the petitioner. However, it has been admitted that the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar due to him in the year 1978 during the year 1982 as his work during the preceding five years of 1982 was found to be satisfactory. It has further been stated in the counter-affidavit that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Excise Superintendent was considered in the month of Aug. 1983 by the selection committee but in view of his consistent bad record of service during the preceding 10 years the petitioner was not found fit for promotion and was as such superseded by his juniors who had fair character rolls. It has further been stated that the case of the petitioner was again considered by the selection committee but no appointments have been made as a result of the selection held in July 1984. The respondents have further stated that the selection committee generally considers the performance of eligible candidates for promotion during the last 10 years. Another stand taken by the respondents is that incumbents are allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar on the basis of satisfactory record of service during the last 5 years and as the petitioner was found fit for being allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in the year 1982 in view of his satisfactory record for the past 5 years he was allowed to do so with effect from 1978. The respondents have, however, stated that mere allowing to cross the Efficiency Bar does not wipe off the adverse entries. The respondents have, however, stated that mere allowing to cross the Efficiency Bar does not wipe off the adverse entries. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayers already indicated above. 5. The controversy in the instant petition revolves around a singular fact as to whether on account of the adverse entries having been awarded to the petitioner against which representations were made, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion when the petitioner has been allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from the year 1978. There is no dispute that the representations of the petitioner remained undecided when the selection was being made. 6. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been filed. As contemplated by Second Proviso to R. 2 of Chap.XXII of this Court and with the consent of the parties this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 7. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 8. Undisputedly representations against adverse entries for the years in question were made by the petitioner but remain undisposed of by the respondents. A feeble assertion no doubt has been made in the counter-affidavit that such representations for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 have been disposed of, but on what date such represenations were disposed of is not revealing. Further what decision has been arrived at is also not disclosed. Moreover the respondents have failed to reveal as to whether the petitioner was ever apprised of such disposal. At the time of considering incumbents for selection for being promoted to the post of Excise Superintendent, the respondents have stated that record of service for the last 10 years is being placed before the selection committee. Naturally the petitioner who had earned adverse entries but had made representations against them cannot be considered. The respondents have nowhere provided any help to us to settle the controversy in regard to this aspect of the matter. It is thus apparent that the representations still remain undisposed of. The petitioner is thus suffering on account of non-disposal of the representations. The agony of a public servant may further stand aggravated when in spite of being allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar he is denied the avenues for being considered for promotion to the higher post. Such an intention is beyond the mandate of law and equity. The petitioner is thus suffering on account of non-disposal of the representations. The agony of a public servant may further stand aggravated when in spite of being allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar he is denied the avenues for being considered for promotion to the higher post. Such an intention is beyond the mandate of law and equity. The petitioner cannot be permitted to suffer for years to come and it is appropriate for the respondents to have apprised him as regards his performance and also the decision on his representations. It may appear to be intriguing that in spite of the petitioner having crossed the Efficiency Bar he is not being considered for selection to the higher post. The petitioner was allowed to cross Effciency Bar in 1982 though retrospectively from the year 1978 while the consideration of the candidate for promotion were held in 1983 and again in 1984. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2086 held as under : "In our view reports earlier than 1944 should not have been considered at all inasmuch as he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in that year. It is unthinkable that if the authorities took any serious view of the charge of dishonesty and inefficiency contained in the confidential reports of 1941 and 1942 they could have overlooked the same and recommended the case of the officer as one fit for crossing the efficiency bar in 1944." 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Dr. I Girish Behari v. State of U.P., 1982 Lab IC 1500 took a similar view. It was held by the Court as under : - "It would be legitimate to hold that if an officer is selected and promoted to a higher post despite adverse entries against him, those adverse entries lose all their value and it is not open to the authorities to consider those adverse entries against the officer again at the time of his subsequent promotion. After promotion by selection despite adverse entries the adverse entries lose all value and they cease to be of any relevant material for consideration for further promotion................ After promotion by selection despite adverse entries the adverse entries lose all value and they cease to be of any relevant material for consideration for further promotion................ We have, therefore, good authority in the cases of Dewan Chunni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2086 , Pawan Kumar Dubey, 1976 Lab IC 1146: ( AIR 1976 SC 1765 ) and Satish Chandra Mittal 1975 Lab IC 285 (All) (supra) to support the view that the doctrine of washing off the adverse entries on promotion of an officer to higher post is applicable to selection and promotion and the contention that the principle should be confined only to the case of compulsory retirement does not appear to be reasonable or sound. If the adverse entries ceased to be effective, they cannot constitute valid material and even if the entire record of the officer is taken into account those entries cannot be used against the officer concerned for purposes of denying him future promotion. If it were not so, an officer would be subject to repeated review of his adverse entries of remote past at various stages even though they were rendered ineffective as he was given promotion to higher post at an earlier stage despite those adverse entries." 10. In Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 269 : (1980 Lab IC 219) it was clearly made out that once an officer is allowed to cross efficiency bar despite adverse entries which may have been awarded to him in the previous years, he could not be compulsorily retired on the basis of those entries. 11. The Supreme Court in Amar Kant v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 531 : (1984 Lab IC 291) was again seized with this aspect of the matter and held that the selection for promotion due to adverse remarks was vitiated on account of non-consideration of the reply of the petitioner. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1622 : (1979 Lab IC 1186) held as under: ''The principle is well-settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified." 13. In view of the non-consideration of the representation as well as the crossing of the Efficiency Bar by the petitioner he was entitled to be considered by the selection committee for promotion to the post of Excise Superintendent ignoring the adverse remarks awarded to the petitioner in the preceding years. When the petitioner has been allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1978 the adverse entries of the preceding years i.e., 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 are of no avail to the respondents to deny the petitioner for being considered by the selection committee for promotion to the post of Excise Superintendent. Moreover the | respondents have failed to place before us any such rule providing for consideration of the performance of an incumbent for the preceding 10 years. It may also be observed that the assertion of the respondents that persons with fair character rolls of past 10 years are being considered for promotion does not appear to be just and fair. Even if the selection committee considered the case of the petitioner its decision is vitiated by reason of reliance being placed on adverse remarks of the preceding 10 years. However, to obviate chances of any injury to the case of the petitioner it would have been more prudent on the part of the respondents to have disposed of the representations expeditiously but years have passed and such disposal has not yet seen the light of the day. It would have been more advisable that the representations made against the award of adverse entries were disposed of expeditiously instead of storing them in the cold storage. 14. A Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) in the case of Dr. K. M. Hamimun Nisa v. State of U. P., 1984 Lucknow Civil Decisions 218 while considering the matter held that the entry awarded as early as 10 years back should not remain a permanent bar to further promotion. Such a denial as the respondents have done in the consideration of the petitioner's advancement in service is not justified. 15. K. M. Hamimun Nisa v. State of U. P., 1984 Lucknow Civil Decisions 218 while considering the matter held that the entry awarded as early as 10 years back should not remain a permanent bar to further promotion. Such a denial as the respondents have done in the consideration of the petitioner's advancement in service is not justified. 15. In view of the above discussions the respondents shall consider the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Excise Superintendent irrespective of the adverse entries awarded to him earlier. 16. Due to aforesaid reasons the petition deserves to be allowed and a direction is liable to be issued to the respondents to consider the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Excise Superintendent. 17. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider the suitability of the. petitioner for promotion to the higher pot of Excise Superintendent forthwith irrespective of the adverse entries awarded to him for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. Parties shall however, bear their own costs.