Judgment S. B. Sinha, G. C. Bharuka and JJ JJ. 1. This petition is directed against an order dated 1-3-1990 as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application where-by and thereunder the petitioner was found not fit for promotion and Bbagalpur District order No 1101/90 dated 5-4-1990 issued by the Superintendent of police, Bhagalpur as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application, whereby the earlier order of promotion in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a constable on 26-4-1963. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 1-7-1979 and in due course was confirmed in the said post with effect from 1-1-1979. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Officiating Sub-Inspector of Police by an order dated IS-1-1985 as is evident from Annexure 1 to the writ application. 4. The Central Selection Board held its meeting from 28-12-1988 to 9-1-1989 to consider the case of the Officiating Sub-Inspectors of Police for their confirmation in the said posts. The petitioner allegedly was not found fit for promotion. 5. The petitioner has contended that he was awarded some black marks but the effect thereof is no longer operative in view of the provision of the Bihar Police Manual. 6. It was, therefore, submitted that the finding of the Selection Board in holding that the petitioner was not found fit for confirmation is based on non-existent grant. 7. In paragraph 18 of the writ application it has been stated that the petitioner was awarded one black mark by an order dated 5-8-1987 by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka, with respect to a lapse dated 26-11-1985 and the effect of the said black marks is stoppage of six months increment; the same has become inoperative. 8. The statements made in paragraph 18 of the writ application have not been controverted by the respondents in the counter affidavit. 9. The State in that counter affidavit itself has annexed a copy of the order dated 7th April, 1986 which is contained in Annexure-A thereto. Evidently the selection Board did not find the petitioner fit for promotion on the basis thereof. 10. The respondents have also annexed with the affidavit police order No.204 of 1988 which is contained in Annexure-B thereto. 11. Evidently the selection Board did not find the petitioner fit for promotion on the basis thereof. 10. The respondents have also annexed with the affidavit police order No.204 of 1988 which is contained in Annexure-B thereto. 11. It is not in dispute that the aforementioned police order as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit stood superseded by police order No 226/91 in terms whereof the effect of award of punishment remains valid for a period of three years from the date of occurrence and not from the date of passing of the said ordir. 12. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by one of us g. C Bharuka, J ) in Ram Anugrah Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1992 (1)PLJR 502. 13. In that decision this court upon reference to Rule 726 read with the explanation contained in paragraph 6 of the police Order No.99 has held that the period of three years should be counted from the date of occurrence and not the date from the award of punishment Evidently the aid rule was framed so as to save an employee from suffering adversely from unnecessary delay in the departmental proceeding. 14. In Ram Anugrah Singhs case (supra) it was further held that although by police amendment slip No 1/86; para 6 of order No 99 had been rescinded but the same was arbitrary, unreasonable and without any rational basis and thus violattve of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in terms of the aforementioned decisions, the effect of award of a black mark will have its effect from the date of occurrence and not from the date of passing of the orders. 15. In this view of the matter, the petitioners case is covered by the ratio of the aforementioned decision. 16. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. Application is allowed.