JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner who is Sub Inspector of Police has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and; promote the petitioner retrospectively with effect from the date of promotion of his next junior in the seniority list of Sob Inspector of Civil Police in Uttar Pradesh with all consequential benefits of pay, allowances, seniority, promotion etc. within a short and fixed period of time as may be fixed by this Court. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed from which it transpires that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to a higher rank of Inspector of Police in C.I. List II of 198687. It was pointed out that the petitioner had not served for three years or more as an officerincharge of a police station and he was given two adverse entries in his character roll for the year 1986. The petitioner's name was considered by the Selection Committee on 4989 but he was found unfit for promotion. A Photostat copy of the proceedings of Selection Committee dated 4989 have been annexed to the counter affidavit, annexure CI, a perusal of which indicates that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police on 231276. After completion of ten years service his name was not placed in CI list II for the reason that during this tenure he had earned five adverse entries out of two in the year 1986. In the year 1969 and 1984 his work was not found upto the mark. In the year 1980 his integrity was withheld. The papers were asked for his promotion from the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki who informed that a departmental proceeding is continuing against the petitioner and is pending, for assaulting Lekhpal, Kadipur, district Sultanpur. After considering the record of the petitioner the name of the petitioner was not placed in CI list II for promotion. 3. In para 3 of the writ petition it was mentioned that the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the year 198687 which means that all adverse entries previous to that stood washed away. This averment has not been denied in the counter affidavit. 3. In para 3 of the writ petition it was mentioned that the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the year 198687 which means that all adverse entries previous to that stood washed away. This averment has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Hence the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the adverse entries prior to his crossing efficiency bar cannot be made use of for not promoting the petitioner to the post of inspector has some substance. Learned Standing counsel submits that the name of the petitioner was not placed in CI list II also for the reason that he had assaulted the lekhpal, Kadipur, district Sultanpur and 'departmental inquiry is pending against him. It has been the settled view of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases that merely because of the pendency of an inquiry the claim of a public servant for promotion cannot be ignored in view of the fact that the petitioner Was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the year 198687, the Selection Committee committed manifest error of law by not placing the name of the petitioner in CI list II because at the time of allowing the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar his work and conduct must have been assessed and evaluated. It has been the consistent view of the Courts in numerous cases that if a person is allowed to cross efficiency bar all the adverse material prior to his crossing efficiency bar stood washed out. 4. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner with effect from the date he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the light of the observations made above, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order to the opposite parties. (Petition allowed)