JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE short grievance of the petitioner is duly qualified for redressal indeed by bizarre facts which I read in the return of the respondents. The fact which is not denied and indeed cannot be denied is that since the year 1965, as per Annexure P-4, petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Director, Agriculture Department, government of Madhya Pradesh. Since then, many others have come and gone and changed chairs, but he is sitting in the same chair. Others have even changed rooms, and have moved higher up, because they were patronised and were given walk-over to deny the petitioner his right for promotion for the last 20 years. ( 2. ) THE facts are startlingly vocal and culpably interesting, leaving nothing for the respondents to defend. Indeed, I read in the return of the respondents admissions, which are Crucially startling and significant. In the first paragraph itself of the return what is said is that "employees promoted prior to the publication of the departmental recruitment rules were treated as Ad hoc promotees and their cases (Were)regularised in the year 1968 when the rules were published. " This has to be read in juxtaposition with what appears at pages 3 and 8 in paragraphs 3 and 13 respectively. At the first place it is again reiterated that the petitioner was holding the post on ad hoc basis and he was doing so subject to the concurrence of the Public Service commission. At the second place this fact is stressed further and it is stated again that "the petitioner as an ad hoc Assistant Director, is not eligible for promotion to Class I post. . . ". What doubt there can be, upon reading these admissions, about the burden of respondents song. ( 3. ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner rightly contends that such a song would not be allowed to be sung in this Court and that respondents must be made to sing what the law mandates them to do. It is the admitted case of the parties, as it has to be, that now in currency are the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Sewa (Rajpatrit Bharti Niyam), 1966, (for. short the Rules) which govern the conditions of service of the petitioner. These rules are very salutary as also mandatory and. petitioner is entitled to invoke these rules. It is the admitted case of the parties, as it has to be, that now in currency are the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Sewa (Rajpatrit Bharti Niyam), 1966, (for. short the Rules) which govern the conditions of service of the petitioner. These rules are very salutary as also mandatory and. petitioner is entitled to invoke these rules. It is indeed his case, had the respondents needed its tune and treated him fairly with his other colleagues, the position today would have been otherwise. The Rules take care of all situations because these are enacted to do justice to all employees to conform to the constitutional mandate of Article 16. The relevant rule is in following terms :- ( 4. ) SHRI Upadhyaya has cited the decision of this Court in Rameshchand rajput 1985 MPWN 554 and has submitted that the Rule considered therein being in pari materia with the aforesaid rule, on the ratio of the decision in that case, this Court must take care of petitioners grievance. Because, the has to be read to include the period of ad hoc service as held in Rameshchand Rajput (supra) when this court took a similar view relying on G. P. Doval AIR 1984 SC 1526. Shri Sinha, appearing for the respondents, had obvious difficulty to meet Shri Upadhyayas contention on the legal position and he placed for my consideration records appertaining the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee. One is of the year 1968 and the other is of 1981 There can be no doubt that the first is wholly irrelevant while the second is wholly mute. I have read both and seen nothing in both, so as to deny the relief prayed. The impugned orders in this case are Annexures P-9 and P-14, rendered respectively on 9-2-1980 and 20-6-1981. What happened in 1968 is, therefore, wholly immaterial as the respondents are required to satisfy the Court on the question, why the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy director of Agriculture, Class I, could not be considered when promotions were made in 1981. Indeed, not before 1970, until he had completed five years, service, the petitioner could not earn eligibility for consideration for promotion and his case could not have been, therefore, considered in 1968. ( 5. Indeed, not before 1970, until he had completed five years, service, the petitioner could not earn eligibility for consideration for promotion and his case could not have been, therefore, considered in 1968. ( 5. ) THE proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 30-7-1981, happily to petitioners advantage, support his case and establish merely that his entitlement to promotion was not considered at all and what was done on that date was merely confirming the status quo. It appears that on that date the committee took the view that since 1-4-1972 the petitioner was rightly holding the post of Assistant director and he was competent to hold the post. This was the only consideration of his case for promotion. Why and how, should I, therefore, say that there was due consideration of petitioners case for promotion, or entitlement for promotion ? On the other hand, as alluded, respondents, own case is that he had not been considered for promotion because he suffered a disability. He was untouchable because he was ineligible, because he had held the post some time on ad hoc basis. The amalgam of curious facts reveal only culpably callous bureaucratic indifference to the call of article 16 of the Constitution, which is projected in-bold relief in the scenario pictured by the respondents themselves in their return. Does it need to be told to the respondents that DPC proceedings must on its face show that the twin criteria of merit and seniority received due consideration of the committee in considering the case of promotion of each candidate ? Need also they be told that DPCs must be converted regularly for consideration appropriately the case of promotions of all, eligible candidates ? In this case one DPC was convened in 1968 and other in 1981, as per record produced and referred to above. ( 6. ) SHRI Upadhyaya has rightly contended that since 1965, as per Annexure P-4, the petitioner having held the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture, he had eligibility for consideration for promotion in terms of Rule 14 afore quoted inasmuch as he was in that post for not only five years to fulfil the minimum requirement, as prescribed in the 4th Schedule, Item No. 4, but for several more years at a stretch. His right to promotion has been trampled upon in a manner which belies description, as is clearly established beyond doubt in gross violation of the Rule 14 afore quoted. ( 7. ) FOR the foregoing reasons the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 afore quoted in conjunction with item No. 4 of Schedule IV of the Rules from the date of his earning eligibility thereunder. This shall be done within a period of two months. It is further directed that the question of inter seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents 3 to 13 shall accordingly be reconsidered by the State simulaneously, as that would become an obvious necessity. ( 8. ) SHRI Sinha submits that I should give a latitude to the State and relax the period and oblige the State by allowing to continue the status quo till such time as it chooses to hold meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee. I must at once repel this submission as most unreasonable and unwholesome as it would be likely to have a severely deleterious effect on the process of administration of justice. I must hopefully observe that it would be happiest day for the judiciary when the State wakes up to its own constitutional obligation and refrains from encouraging such (prayer in this Court. ( 9. ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with the directions aforesaid. However, there shall be no order as to costs, because State has to be encouraged instead to render quick justice to the petitioner by expeditiously dealing with his case to abate his protracted sufferings. ( 10. ) OUT-STANDING amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.