JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The dispute for the post of Sadar Munsarim in the District Judge's Court, Sultanpur has been agitated in this writ petition. The petitioner claims that it is he, who alone is entitled for promotion to the said post, has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 18th May, 1987 passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur in so far as it relates to the post of Sadar Munsarim, 2. By the impugned order the District Judge passed an order that since inquiry has been ordered to be conducted against the petitioner, therefore, pending its result, the next seniormost official Sri Rajendra Prasad is appointed as Sadar Munsarim in selection grade in the scale of Rs. 6251360 f ice Sri Mohd Shafiq since retired. 3. The petitioner started his service career in the Civil Court, Sujtanpur in the year, 1954. In the year 1985 one Mohd. Shafiq was the senior most employee of the judgeship and as such he was appointed as Sadar Munsarim. One Sri Sheo Bahadur Malviya stood at serial no 2 while the petitioner stood at serial no. 3 in accordance with the seniority. The said Mohd. Shafiq retired on 28th February, 1987 and thereafter the said Sheo Bahadur Malviya was temporarily promoted as Sadar Munsarim with a rider that as he was temporarily promoted on the said post, he will be kept under consideration through the process of selection. Sri Malviya died on 3rd April, 1987 and at that time the petitioner was the seniormost official of the Civil Court and according to the petitioner in view of relevant Rule in practice he alone was entitled to be promoted on the post of Munsarim, but he was deprived of the same. It is also stated that while the petitioner was functioning as Central Nazir in Civil Court, Sultanpur he proceeded on leave on account of his illness w.e.f. 28th August, 1986. Notwithstanding his illness the district Judge transferred the petitioner to the post of readermunsarim w.e.f. 28th .September, 1986. After coming back from leave the petitioner gave his joining report on 1st October, 1986. According to the petitioner, he handed over the charges, verified and confirmed the same to the then Incharge Nazarath but the District Judge did not accept the complete handing over of the charge and proposed an inquiry to be made against him by the then 1st Addl. According to the petitioner, he handed over the charges, verified and confirmed the same to the then Incharge Nazarath but the District Judge did not accept the complete handing over of the charge and proposed an inquiry to be made against him by the then 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Sultanpur, vide order dated 28th January, 1987. It has been asserted that no inquiry whatsoever was done, may it be because, there was no material for the same to show that any misconduct was conducted by the petitioner or that he did not handover the complete charge. Some two months thereafter the District Judge vide order dated 24th March, 1987 directed the medical examination of the petitioner to the effect as to whether he suffered from the disease of leucoderma since 1968 and he was never asked to appear during this period, before the Medical Board. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board, Faizabad. The petitioner appeared and the Medical Board also found that the petitioner was not suffering from Leprosy but only from leucoderma. The petitioner has averred that this was done by the District Judge to deprive him from the office of Sadar Munsarim, After realising that petitioner was not being promoted to the post of Munsarim and hurdles were created in his way, the petitioner made a representation to the Administrative Judge in which he stated that he was being treated with prejudice by the District Judge and if any inquiry was to be held let it be held by the officer to be nominated by the Administrative Judge and not by the District Judge. Alongwith his representation the petitioner filed copies of the various orders including the certificate dated 18th January, 1978 which was given to him by the then District Judge and Administrative Judge certifying that he remained a man of proven integrity 4. The District Judge did not file his counter affidavit but the second clerk in the District Judge's Court who did not apply but was appointed Munsarim said to be provisionally, filed his counter affidavit, making reference to charges against the petitioner asserting that he was suffering from leprosy although medical report says otherwise. From the affidavit filed by the petitioner in reply it appears that the one who has filed counteraffidavit also suffers such disease and there were white spots on his body too. From the affidavit filed by the petitioner in reply it appears that the one who has filed counteraffidavit also suffers such disease and there were white spots on his body too. It is improper that a second clerk has been assigned the work of filing counter affidavit and the District Judge avoided to file his affidavit and thereby refuting Allegations and assertions made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit reliance has been placed on rule 20 of the subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 contained in the Government of U.P. Judicial Department G.O. No. 2494/VII61240 dated August ,1947 which is the Rule regarding promotion of employee in Civil Courts. In the counter affidavit it is averred that petitioner was the seniormost employee but because the inquiry was pending and he was withholding some government register etc. while working on the post of Central Nazir and did not give the charge of the same and that is why promotion was not given to him. The petitioner refuted this allegation, and he also relied upon the Rules on which reliance has been placed in the counter affidavit but in the counter affidavits it was not denied that two years and four months had elapsed but the inquiry officer had not given any chargesheet to the petitioner and after giving a direction for holding an inquiry the matter did not progress, may it be to deprive the petitioner from the promotional post on a charge which in fact does not exist. In the rejoinder affidavit it has been pointed out that the said Rule 20 has been superseded and clarified by the Notification no. 01119/1 lB50 date of July 11, 1950. The only thing said to be against the petitioner has been derailed out by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit is that in fact no wrong has been committed by him and the so called charge is for the purposes of charge only and in fact it is no charge at all. The Government framed Rules known as Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. Rule 3 of the said Rules says that 'The Ministerial Establishment of Judgeship shall form a unit, but the stenographers shall form a separate cadre. The Government framed Rules known as Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. Rule 3 of the said Rules says that 'The Ministerial Establishment of Judgeship shall form a unit, but the stenographers shall form a separate cadre. Rule 20(3) of the said Rules reads as follows: (3) Posts other than those mentioned in clause (2) above, for persons in the pre1931 scale or post 1931 scale respectively, shall be treated as selection posts, promotion to which shall be based on merit with due regard to seniority. Note: In passing over a person for inefficiency as well as promotion for a selection post, due weight shall be given to his previous record of service and seniority should be disregarded only when the junior official promoted is of outstanding merit as compared with his seniors. A reading of these two rules make it clear that the post of Munsarim is a promotion post reserved for the members of clerical cadre and the promotion is to be made on merits with due regard to the seniority. The seniority can be disregarded only if the next person in the seniority is of outstanding merit (emphasis supplied). It means that merely by judging a person of higher merit than his senior will not entitle the person for the promotional post. The G.O. of 1950 to which reference has been made in the counter affidavit has no applicability as the same replaced the existing Rules for the recruitment of ministerial staff to the subordinate office. In view of the fact that there are specific rules for civil court employees, the General rules will not apply unless made applicable partly or otherwise. 5. This question came up for consideration in Han Mohan Lal v. S.D. Singh and others ( 1975 SLR 699 ) in which the Division Bench held that the criterion for promotion to a selection post is merit with due regard to seniority. The Quantum of due regard to seniority has been explained in the Note. Seniority can be disregarded only if it is found that a junior is of outstanding merit as compared to his senior and for this purpose the previous record of service has not only to be considered but due weight should be given to it. The term merit has to be understood in this special sense as outstanding merit, comparatively. Seniority can be disregarded only if it is found that a junior is of outstanding merit as compared to his senior and for this purpose the previous record of service has not only to be considered but due weight should be given to it. The term merit has to be understood in this special sense as outstanding merit, comparatively. Of course, while judging the merit the factors like character, integrity, devotion to duty, knowledge of rules and regulations, dealings etc. are all relevant. Due weight shall be given to the previous record of service. These various attributes of an employee have to be gathered from the previous record of service and it is primarily from that record that it has to be seen whether the junior is of an outstanding merit compared to his senior. We are in respectful agreement with this bench decision. The question for consideration is that can a person be deprived of the promotion post on the ground that there are certain charges against a person like irregularity in the handing over of the charge and defect in preparation of inventory and a direction for holding an enquiry in the matter has been given. In the instant case the District Judge who expressed his opinion appointed an Additional Civil Judge as Enquiry Officer who did not hold any inquiry at all. More than two years passed no chargesheet was given and even the District Judge did not cause issuance of any chargesheet. This lends support to the petitioner's averments that knowing fully well that so called charges are flimsy charges and in fact there is nothing against the petitioner and because of his allergy and prejudice towards the petitioner and in order to deprive him from the office of Munsarim to which he is entitled to, the direction to the petitioner to appear for medical examination and further directing to hold an enquiry against the petitioner has been resorted to, only as a smoke screen. The nature of charges and threat of impending inquiry and nonholding of any disciplinary inquiry tend to indicate that this was done to deprive the petitioner from holding the promotion post. Even if disciplinary proceedings have been pending a person cannot be deprived of his promotion post. The nature of charges and threat of impending inquiry and nonholding of any disciplinary inquiry tend to indicate that this was done to deprive the petitioner from holding the promotion post. Even if disciplinary proceedings have been pending a person cannot be deprived of his promotion post. In this connection reliance may be made to the Division Bench case The Director of Postal Services (Andhra) and another v. C. Muneshwara Rao (1980 (2) SLR 662) in which it has been held that pendency of disciplinary proceedings not to stand in the way for consideration for promotion and pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be made a ground for ignoring the employee from consideration for promotion. Although the said case was in respect of a different Rule but the law which has been laid down in the said case even otherwise holds good. Learned counsel made reference to two single judge's decisions, namely K. Somaiah v. The Zonal Manager Food Corporation of India, Madras and another (1979 (1) SLR50) in which it has been held that promotion, withholding of during pendency of inquiry or contemplated initiation of disciplinary proceedings amounts to imposition of punishment and Article 311 of the Constitution attracted; and V. Jagdishwara Rao v. The Postmaster General, Andhra Circle and others (1978 All India Service Law Journal 201) in which also it was held that pendency of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground for overlooking the petitioner for promotion. 6. Any preliminary inquiry not followed by any regular disciplinary inquiry or any contemplated inquiry in respect of minor charges not followed by any inquiry within a reasonable period cannot stand in way of promotion of an employee on the ground of seniority and merits. The holding or not holding of an enquiry and extension of threat, real or assumed, is to be excluded for consideration in the matter of promotion, in the instant case more than two years have passed and neither the District Judge nor the Additional civil judge have taken any recourse towards the progress of inquiry and even chargesheet has not been prepared, issued and served upon the petitioner. The petitioner could not have been or cannot be deprived of his promotion because of a contemplated disciplinary inquiry particularly when the same has illegally been made an instrument by the appointing authority,' to thwart, delay and defeat the process of promotion. 7. The petitioner could not have been or cannot be deprived of his promotion because of a contemplated disciplinary inquiry particularly when the same has illegally been made an instrument by the appointing authority,' to thwart, delay and defeat the process of promotion. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. A mandamus is issued to the District Judge, Sultanpur to look into the record of the petitioner ignoring the contemplated inquiry within one week of the production of a certified copy, of this order and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, and the relevant rules governing the conditions of service of the petitioner. No order is made as to costs. Copy of this order be issued within a week on payment of necessary charges. (Petition allowed)