JUDGMENT 1. - By means of this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of his displacement (demotion) order dated 28th October, 1989 (Annexure 3) and prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to promote him as Section Incharge in the promotion quota for the year 1987-88. 2. Briefly stated that relevant facts are that the petitioner entered the service of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short, 'The RIICO'), a Government of Rajasthan undertaking as a Senior Assistant on 14th July, 1975. As per final seniority list Annexure-1, of Senior Assistants as on 31.3.87, his name was placed at Sr. No. 4. By order dated 30th July, 1987 (Annexure-2), he along with other Senior Assistants was promoted on the post of Section Incharge, on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months or till the suitable candidates were made available on selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.). The D.P.C. met on 23rd September, 1989 and recommended the promotion of ten Senior Assistants including Shri KK Sharma, respondent No. 2, who was junior to him, but the petitioner's name was not recommended and as such by the impugned office order dated 28th October, 1989 (Annexure 3), he was displaced (demoted) with immediate effect and posted as Senior Assistant. It is alleged that due to adverse remarks appearing in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 1985-86 viz., "(1) He is in habit if taking leave without any pre-intimation and mis-behaved in office, (ii) he is not sincere to his duties", the D.P.C. did not recommend his name for promotion. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the illness of his child, he has to leave office on 2nd November 1985 after submitting an application for grant of leave and for permission to leave the headquarter, and that there after he himself fell ill and sought leave from 4th November 1985 to 8th November, 1985 and also submitted medical and fitness certificate, but his leave was refused by the Area Manager vide letter dated 4th November, 1985 Annexure -4. After that vide letter dated 29th January 1987 (Annexure 6), he was informed that adverse entries cited supra were made in his annual confidential report for the year 1985-86 and was asked to submit his explanation. After that vide letter dated 29th January 1987 (Annexure 6), he was informed that adverse entries cited supra were made in his annual confidential report for the year 1985-86 and was asked to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 15th February, 1988 (Annexure 7), which was rejected by the Advisor (Personnel) of respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated 18th November 1988. The petitioners filed an appeal on 18th April, 1989 vide Annexure-8, which was also rejected by the respondent No. 1 by its letter dated 7th October, 1989 (Annexure 10). It is alleged by the petitioner that the impugned displacement order (Annexure 3) is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, because his promotion was withheld on the basis of unjustified adverse entries and that respondent No. 1 Shri K.K. Sharma, who was junior to him, was promoted. 3. The non-petitioner No. 1 in its reply denied the averments made in the writ petition and asserted that keeping in view the adverse entries in the annual confidential rolls of the petitioner, the D.P.C. did not recommend his name for promotion. 4. Respondent No. 4 despite sufficient service, did not file any reply and preferred to remain absent. 5. The petitioner in his rejoinder dated 5th October, 1990 submitted that the non-petitioner No. 1 vide his letter dated 1st September 1990 (Annexure 11) has now accepted his review appeal dated 13th February, 1990 for expunging the said adverse remarks appearing in his A.P.A.R. for the year 1985-86 and expunged those remarks. He further submitted that since his promotion to the post of Section Incharge was denied on the basis of those very adverse remarks, their remains no reasons whatsoever to deny his promotion specially when person junior to him has been promoted. He, therefore, prayed that he may be promoted to the post of Section Incharge from the year 1987-88 with all the consequential back wages and benefits. 6. The respondent No. 1 did not file any surrejoinder or any counter affidavit. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 does not dispute the contents of letter Annexure-11. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration. 6. The respondent No. 1 did not file any surrejoinder or any counter affidavit. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 does not dispute the contents of letter Annexure-11. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration. Since the adverse entries in the annual confidential roll for the year 1985-86 have already been expunged by the respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 1st September, 1990 (Annexure.11) and since the promotion to the post of Section Incharge was denied to him, by the D.P.C. on the basis of those adverse remarks, it is a fit case wherein the D.P.C. should reconsider the case of the petitioner for the vacancies existing for the year 1987-88 and to make suitable recommendations in accordance with law. 9. Therefore, in view of this, I accept this writ petition and partly quashed the office order dated 28th October, 1988 (Annexure 3), so far as it relates to the dis-placement (demotion) of the petitioner from the post of Section Incharge to the post of Senior Assistant and direct respondent No. 1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner against the vacancies for the year 1987-88 for the post of Section Incharge and if he is found suitable for promotion, then to promote him from the date his juniors were promoted. No order as to costs. *******