JUDGMENT 1. - Both these writ petitions filed by Kailash Lal Mathur, as officer serving under respondents of 1 to 3, raise interconnected and interlinked questions of facts and law. Hence, they have been heard together by consent of all concerned and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Respondent No. 1 is a Government of India Enterprise and is wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India and this Is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 3. Petitioner Kailash Lal Mathur is an M.Sc. in Agriculture Science. He was selected for the post of Deputy Marketing Manager under respondents No. 1 and 2 and was appointed on probation of one year by an order dated 22.10.69. He was confirmed on this post in the year 1971. Respondent Jagdish Chandra Sandhya, respondent No. 1 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341 of 1982 holds a post-graduate degree In Arts and was selected as Deputy Manager (Sales) under the said respondents in May, 1975. Shri A.E. George, respondent No. 4 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1983 holds a degree of B.Sc. Agr. and joined respondents No. 1 and 2 as Sales officer In 1974 and was eventually promoted as Deputy Sales Manager in 1977. Likewise, Shri S.N. Shukla, respondent No. 5 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1983 holds the degree of B.Sc. Agr. and entered the service of respondents No. 1 and 2 as Sales Reporesentative on 23.12.68 and was eventually promoted as Deputy Sales Manager on 26.5.77. Thus, Jagdish Chandra Sanadhya, A.E. George and S.N. Shukla were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Managers. 4. The case of the petitioner is that one post of Manager Sales was available for promotion to the petitioner in the year 1977. A Departmental Promotion Committee (for shoit DPC) was scheduled to meet on 26.8.77. The case of the petitioner is that Shri B.D. Sharma, respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions, was General Manager of respondent No. 1. Shri B.D. Sharma was not happy with the petitioner and was inimically disposed of towards the petitioner. He was also closely associated with Shri J.C. Sanadhya. The case of the petitioner is that Shri B.D. Sharma, respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions, was General Manager of respondent No. 1. Shri B.D. Sharma was not happy with the petitioner and was inimically disposed of towards the petitioner. He was also closely associated with Shri J.C. Sanadhya. Shri B.D. Sharma with a view to oust the petitioner from consideration for the post of Manager deliberately proceeded on leave with the result that the DPC could not meet on 26.8.77. Had the DPC met on 26.8.77, the petitioner would have been selected for the said promotional post in as much as there was no other contestant in the field. However, due to aforesaid deliberate act of Shri B.D. Sharma, the DPC could not meet on 26.8.77 and eventually the DPC met on 15.9.81. It is the case of the petitioner that he had an unblemished career and he would have been selected but for the aforesaid malafids action on part of Shri B.D. Sharma. The case of the petitioner is that Shri B.D. Sharma got one adverse confidential report communicated to the petitioner for the year 1977-78 with a view to harass the petitioner. Petitioner filed a representation also against this A.C.R. but the same was summarily rejected. The case of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner had very good record throughout, the ACRs. for the year 1973-74 and 1974-75, which had been recorded by Shri B.D. Sharma were removed by him Shri B.D. Sharma and new adverse A.C.Rs. were substituted, though they were not communicated to the petitioner. It was further pleaded that due to Mansuovering of Shri Sharma A.C.Rs. of the year 1976-77 was also not available. 5. The petitioner then averred that according to the Service Rules known as Executive Cadre Scheme and related Policy Guide Lines, 1980, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as he held better position than the respondents. His grievance is that under this scheme, a ceiling of 40 points has been laid down for seniority i.e. for length of service. According to the petitioner this is illegal inasmuch as a person with seven years of service would be equated with the persons having 13 years of service. Thus it was violative of the principle of equality and unequalswere sought to be made equals. According to the petitioner this is illegal inasmuch as a person with seven years of service would be equated with the persons having 13 years of service. Thus it was violative of the principle of equality and unequalswere sought to be made equals. Likewise, it was pleaded that the petitioner had higher qualifications and was a post graduate in Management Science while respondents Sanadhya, George and Shukla did not possess such qualifications. The petitioner pleaded that it was mandatory for the DPC to meet every year In January and July but DPC could not meet periodically as prescribed with a view to eliminate the candidatures of the petitioner. 6. The case of the petitioner is that in the DPC held on 15.9.81, besides Shri B.D. Sharma, Sarvashri V.P. Jaya Kumar, Deputy General Manager Personnel and O.P. Sharma, Chief Manager (Cost and Taxation) also participated. These Latter officers found the petitioner suitable for the post of Manager Sales but due to malafide action on part of Shri B.D. Sharma was minutes of this DPC could not be finalised and a new DPC was convened to meet on 25.1.82. In this DPC petitioner was superseded by Shri J.C. Sanadhya who was promoted to the post of Manager Sales by an order dated 6th February, 1982. The name of the petitioner was kept at No. 2 in the panel. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the panel of promotion was valid for six months yet the petitioner was not promoted and due to malafide action on part of Shri B.D. Sharma, the panel was allowed to lapse and a fresh DPC was convened on 26.7.82. This DPC continued till 18.8.1982 and respondents A.E. George and S.N. Shukla were promoted to the post of Manager Sales and the petitioner was again superseded. George and Shukla were promoted by an order dated 18.1.1983. 8. By filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341 of 1982, the petitioner lnteralia prayed that promotion order of J.C. Sanadhya dated 6.2.1982 may be quashed and the respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to finalise the minutes of DPC held on 15.9.1981, meaning thereby, but not specifically saying so, that petitioner be ordered to be promoted in pursuance of the result of DPC convened on 15.9.1981. By filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1983, petitioner seeks that promotion order dated 18.1.1983 issued in respect of George and Shukla may be quashed. In support of his case, the petitioner has taken some other pleads also which I shall take note of, at appropriate place in case question to demands. 9. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341 of 1982, whow cause notices were issued to the respondents. Reply was filed by respondent No. 1 alone. Thereafter, the writ petition was admitted on 27.1.1983 and notices were directed to be issued to respondents No. 3 and 4. They, however, did not put in appearance inspite of service. Respondent No. 1 filed a detailed reply contesting the writ petition. Petitioner filed a rejoinder thereto. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1983 was admitted on 13.4.1983. All the respondents were served by 11.9.1985 but only respondent No. 1 filed reply. Other respondents have not put in appearance inspite of notice. On 12.3.1986 by order of seven date passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1983, the matter was directed to be listed with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341 of 1982. Thus, both the cases have been heard together. 10. Respondent No. 1 has admitted that petitioner was appointed as Deputy Marketing Manager on 22.10.1969 and was confirmed in the year 1971. It was not specifically denied that Shri J.C. Sanadhya was appointed Deputy Manager Sales in 1975. Likewise, it was also not denied that A.E. George and S.N. Shukla were appointed Deputy Managers in 1977. Thus, admittedly Sanadhya, George and Shukla were junior to the petitioner. However, it has been denied that Shri B.D. Sharma was favourably inclined towards Sanadhya or that he was inimical to petitioner in any way. It was admitted that Sanadhya, George and Shukla were promoted by superseding the petitioner but it was denied that this was due to any malafide action on part of Shri B.D. Sharma or Shri B.D. Sharma manipulated supersession of the petitioner. The case of the contesting respondent is that performance of petitioner was not unblemished as claimed by him. Even his probation period had to be extended because of non-satisfactory performance. 11. The case of the contesting respondent is that performance of petitioner was not unblemished as claimed by him. Even his probation period had to be extended because of non-satisfactory performance. 11. About the DPC which was scheduled to meet on 25.8.1977, it was averred that it did not meet on that date as Shri B.D. Sharma was indisposed on that day and could not attend office for this reason. It was denied that petitioner had any chance of being selected at the meeting of DPC held on 25.8.1977. Rather, he had no such chance at all looking to his past performance. 12. It was denied that adverse ACRs were got written by Shri B.D. Sharma. It was pleaded that ACR for the year 1977-78 was recorded by the Regional Sales Manager and reviewed by General Manager (Sales). The adverse ACR was duly communicated to the petitioner and he filed a representation against the same. The representation was considered by the Chairman cum Managing Director (hereinafter CMD) who did not find any substance therein and rejected the same. It was further pleaded that the performance of the petitioner was average for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 and satisfactory for the year 1980-81. 13. It was emphatically denied that ACRs for the year 1973- 74 and 1974-75 were removed and adverse ACRs were substituted. It is stated that ACRs for the aforesaid years were not adverse and hence the same were not communicated to the petitioner. It was pleaded that ACR for the year 1976-77 was not drawn due to inadvertence and no adverse inference could be drawn on this count. It was denied that there was any manoeuvring in not drawing ACR for the year 1976-77. It was pleaded that the DPC had proceeded to award marks on the basis of seniority in accordance with the prescribed policy/procedure and the allegtion that unequals were treated as equal is wholly wrong. It was denied that petitioner holds a degree in Management Science or in any way superior to the respondents who have superseded him. It was denied that it was obligatory for DPC to meat every year in January and July. It was submitted that the provision was only a guide line and DPC was to be convened in accordance with the administrative requirements. 14. Upon such premises, it was averred that the writ petitions deserved to be dismissed. 15. It was denied that it was obligatory for DPC to meat every year in January and July. It was submitted that the provision was only a guide line and DPC was to be convened in accordance with the administrative requirements. 14. Upon such premises, it was averred that the writ petitions deserved to be dismissed. 15. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties who have also submitted written arguments. I have carefully gone through the written arguments filed on either side and have bestowed my earnest consideration to them. The admitted position before me is that the petitioner was senior to respondents Sanadhya, George and Shukla but he was not considered suitable for promotion to the post of Manager in DPCs Rule in 1982 while Sanadhya, George and Shukla were found suitabvle. The basic contention of the petitioner is that Shri B.D. Sharma, General Manager was inimical to the petitioner. Shri Sharma was favourably inolined towards Sanadhya. Hence, Shri B.D. Sharma manipulated things in a manner that petitioner was superseded. It is to be seen in this charge has any substance and the petitioner has been able to establish that Shri B.D. Sharma was inimically disposed of towards the petitioner and was favourably inclined towards Sanadhya. 16. Here, I may state that the petitioner has made a bald assertion that Shri B.D. Sharma was inimically disposed of towards him. Likewise, a bald averment has been made that Shri B.D. Sharma was favourably inclined towards Sanadhya because both Sharma and Sanadhya belonged to Udaipur. These averments have been stoutly denied by B.D. Sharma in his affidavit. To show malic on the part of Shri B.D. Sharma, petitioner made following averment in para 20 of S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 341 of 1982: "20. That the malafide of respondents Shri Sharma will be further evident from the fact that the petitioner had through-out very good record, but during 73-74 and 74-75, Annual Confidential Reports were not reviewed by the Chairman, who is the reviewing authority and both these A.C.R. were only written by Shri Sharma as a Dy. General Manager but those A.C.R. were got removed and new adverse A.C.R. were sought to be fifed without any remarks from the reviewing authority. At the relevant time, Shri A.N. Banerjee was the Chairman cum Managing Director, but the same was not reviewed by Shri Banerjee. General Manager but those A.C.R. were got removed and new adverse A.C.R. were sought to be fifed without any remarks from the reviewing authority. At the relevant time, Shri A.N. Banerjee was the Chairman cum Managing Director, but the same was not reviewed by Shri Banerjee. therefore, Shri Sharma could maneouvred and removed A.C.R. and filled fresh adverse A.C.R. though they were not communicated to the petitioner till this date. Shri Banerjee left in 1975. Thus, both these A.C.R. were deliberately maneouvred by Shri Sharma so as to harm the petitioner." These are serious insinuations and allegations and Shri B.D. Sharma has stoutly denied them. Shri B.D. Sharma in para 11 of his affidavit replied to these allegations as under: "11. That the contents of para 20 of the writ petition, which I have gone through, are wholly incorrect. The insinuation that in 1973-74 and 1974-75 the Annual Confidential Reports which were prepared by me had been removed and new adverse Annual Confidential Reports were sought to be filed without any remarks by Shri A.N. Banerjee is wholly wrong. Its utter falsity would be apparence from the fact that the Annual Confidential Report for 1973-74 and 1974-75 which are on record, carry the initials of Shri S.S. Ranawat, I.A.S., who was at that time on deputation with Hindustan Zinc, from the Government of Rajasthan and was working as Senior Administrative officer. Shri Ranawat who had the exclusive charge of all Annual Confidential Reports, including those of the petitioner, left Hindustan Zinc Limited in the year 1976 and reverted to the Government Service. The entire story of the removal of Annual Confidential Reports and their substitution by new A.C. Rs. is wholly false. It is relevant that Shri A.N. Banerjee left Hindustan Zinc in July, 1976 and not in 1975." The aforesaid statement of Shri B.D. Sharma completely refutes the allegation of the petitioner, which is not substantiated in any manner. I find that petitioner, to build up his case of alleged malafide on the part of Shri B.D. Sharma, has come out with the above cock and bull story, which does not deserve any credence for a minute. I, unhesitatingly reject the allegation and insinuation, contained in para 20 of the writ petition. 17. I find that petitioner, to build up his case of alleged malafide on the part of Shri B.D. Sharma, has come out with the above cock and bull story, which does not deserve any credence for a minute. I, unhesitatingly reject the allegation and insinuation, contained in para 20 of the writ petition. 17. Petitioner in para 21 of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341 of 1982 made the following allegations, presumably with a view to bolster up his theory of malafides at the hands of Shri B.D. Sharma. He has stated: "21. That the petitioner learns that 1976-77 A.C.R. is not available in the file. Thus, this is all maneouvring of Shri Sharma, who was bent upon to harm the petitioner one way or the other and to favour the respondent No. 4." Shri B.D. Sharma has categorically denied this allegation and has stated in para 12 of his affidavit that: "12. That I have gone through the contents of para 21 of the writ petition, which are wrong and baseless. I am not in any way responsible for the Annual Cinfidential Report for the year 1976-77 not having been drawn." Thus, I find that petitioner has indulged In wild allegations against Shri B.D. Sharma to support his alleged plea of malice. 18. The petitioner did not stop at this. In para 11 of his said writ petition, he had the audacity and cheek to say: "11. That Shri Sharma was looking out an opportunity to some - how malign the petitioner on one count or the other and when the petitioner approached the Chairman Cum Managing Director and persuaded him to convene the D.P.C., Shri Sharma in order to harm the petitioner deliberately got an adverse Confidential Report communicated to the petitioner for the year 1977-78 on 22.5.1978. The petitioner filed representation against this adverse remarks but without any avail as his representation was rejected." In reply to the writ petition, respondent No. 1 has refuted this allegation in para 6 and has stated: "6. That the facts mentioned in para No. 11 of the writ position are wholly, wrong and the suggestion that Shri Sharma got an adverse confidential report of the petitioner in the year 1977-78 is wholly wrong. The fact is that the Annual Confidential Report for the relevant year was recorded by the Regional Sales Manager and reviewed by the General Manager (Coml.). The fact is that the Annual Confidential Report for the relevant year was recorded by the Regional Sales Manager and reviewed by the General Manager (Coml.). The adverse entires were communicated to Shri Mathur vide D.O. Letter No. ACR/341 dated 22.5.81. Shri Mathur represented against the said adverse entries and his representation was throughly examined by the Chairman-cum Managing Director Appellate Authority. He did not find any justification for expunging the adverse remarks. The story of Shri Sharma getting the adverse entries made in the report is wholly wrong." In his affidavit Shuri B.D, Sharma made the position explicit and said: "3. That I have read the averments of para 11 of the writ petition and it is utterly wrong that I got an adverse Confidential Report Communicated to the petitioner for the year 1977-78 on 22.5.78. The Annual Confidential Report, according to the rules, was prepared by his immediate superior, Shri S. Kumar, Regional Sales Manager and was only reviewed by me. As per normal procedure adverse entries were communicated to him. The petitioner filed a representation against the adverse remarks as communicated, but on consideration of all the relevant material the appellate authority i.e. the Chairman-cum-Managing Director rejected his representation." 19. Faced with this reply, the petitioner in his rejoinder to reply came out with a new story and said: "(iii) That A.C.R. for 1977-78 should have been written by Shri B.D. Sharma because Shri Sharma was holding the post of Deputy General Manager under the Sales Department, this post is slightly higher than Chief Sales Manager, therefore, Shri Sharma was reporting office as per circular dated 11.5.72. Copy thereof is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure 6. the next authority i.e. reviewing authority was the Managing Director. But since Shri Sharma was deliberately and malafidely motivated against the petitioner, therefore, he got A.C.R. initiated through Regional Sales Manager Shri Santosh Kumar who himself was appointed on probation in the year 1977 and had not completed one year of probation. Since Shri Santosh Kumar was directly subordinate of Shri Sharma on probation, therefore, Shri Santosh Kumar has hardly option but to writ at the binding of Shri Sharma. As a matter of fact as per circular of 1972 the A.C.R. of the petitioner should be reviewed by the Managing Director. Since Shri Santosh Kumar was directly subordinate of Shri Sharma on probation, therefore, Shri Santosh Kumar has hardly option but to writ at the binding of Shri Sharma. As a matter of fact as per circular of 1972 the A.C.R. of the petitioner should be reviewed by the Managing Director. But Shri Sharma who is adopt in his game to cleverly manoeuvred that A.C.R. is written by his direct subordinate and same is being reviewed by him which he could not have done as per 1972 circular. Thus, this is an another glaring and eloquent example of Shri Sharma's mafafide." The aforesaid allegations appear to be after thought and have no basis. The fact of the matter is that the adverse A.C.R. of 1977- 78 was initiated by Shri Santosh Kumar. The mere fact that Shri Santosh Kumar was subordinate to Shri B.D. Sharma does not lead to the inference that Santosh Kumar made the adverse remark at the instance of Shri B.D. Sharma. This allegation, therefore, does not at all advance the charge of malafides against Shri B.D. Sharma and in my opinion the aforesaid all the charges have been made with a calculated design to prejudice the mind of the court towards Shri B.D. Sharma. Suffice it to say that I do not find any substance in any of the aforesaid charges. 20. The next allegation is that when the D.P.C. was scheduled to be held on 25.8.1977, Shri B.D. Sharma deliberately proceeded on leave so that D.P.C. way not meet. This allegation has been denied by respondent No. 1 who has categorically said that Shri B.D. Sharma had fallon ill and hence he could not attend the D. P.C. Shri B.D. Sharma has categorically denied the suggestion that he deliberately proceeded on leave. He has stated that since he was unwell on that day, he did not attend the office. I do not find any reason to doubt this statement of Shri B.D. Sharma and find that petitioner has come out with an utterly immaginary yarn that Shri B.D. Sharma deliberately proceeded on leave with a view to scuttle or scotch the proposed meeting of the D. P.C. the petitioner has imagined a meaning where none existed. 21. At this juncture, I may state the law relating to malafides. 21. At this juncture, I may state the law relating to malafides. It is trite law that if administrative or executive action is actuated by malafides, such action would be vitiated. However, the burden of proving malafides lies on the person who alleges malafides. The charge of malafides is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof. However, it is not necessary to adduce direct evidence to prove malafides. Direct evidence may not be available in many a case. To prove malafides, it would be sufficient to establish circumstances from which inference of malafides can be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference. I may further state that in such cases, charge of malafides is not required to be proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. In other words, the charge in not required to be proved to the hilt. It would suffice if from the proved facts and circumstances, inference of malafides may be deduced on preponderance of probabilities. However, the proof of such facts must be clear, cogent and unimpeachable. 22. As stated already, the aforesaid charges of malafides have not been substantiated In any manner whatever and must be rejected. 23. The petitioner has pleaded that Shri B.D. Sharma was responsible for the holding a D.P.C. between the period 26.8.77 till 15.9.91. It has been pleaded that respondents 1 and 2 were bound to convence D.P.C. every year on 1st of January and 1st of July. Reliance has been placed in this connection on Rule 15(2) of the relevant Rules. This rule reads as follows: "D.P.C. shall ordinarily meet twice a year and consider promotions of executives with effect from 1st July and 1st January every year respectively." Now. I do not find any material on record to show that Shri B.D. Sharma was at all responsible for the non-convening of D.P.C. during the relevant years. Shri B.D. Sharma has categorically stated in para 5 of his affidavit filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341/82, 'that it is utterly wrong that I in any way was instrumental in not convening the meeting of D.P.C. from 1977 upto 1981.' Actually it Was the CMD who was responsible for convening the D.P.C. There is no allegation or averment that CMD and any personal bias against the petitioner or khe was in any way favourably inclined towards Sanadhya. George or Shukla. George or Shukla. The petitioners took care to implead Shri B.D. Sharma by name but he has not impleaded CMD by names. 24. There is yet another angle to the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that non-convening of D.P.C. between the above period was unfair, unreasonable and an act of malice in law. Reliance has been placed in this connection upon the following rulings : (i) AIR 1988 S.C. 686 (ii) 1990 (2) S.C.C. 745 (iii) AIR 1979 S.C. 1628 (iv) AIR 1978 S.C. 597 (v) AIR 1978 S.C. 1675 (vi) AIR 1980 S.C. 1982 (vii) 1991(4) S.C.C. 54 (viii) 1991 (2) S.C.C. 131 (ix) 1988 (4) S.C.C. 54 (x) AIR 1958 S.C. 707 (xi) AIR 1970 S.C. 178. I have gone through these rulings carefully and it. can be taken as a well settled principle of law that executive or administrative authuorities have a duty to act fairly, reasonably and without malice. The principle is unexceptionable and is ingrained as a basic tenet of rule of law. But, I find that the petitioner has not made any prayer for direction that respondents 1 and 2 be compelled to convene any fresh D.P.C. which could have been convened within that interval. Hence, I need not dilate any further on this aspect of the matter. 25. Now, I may deal with the contentions pertaining to D.P.C. which met on 15.9.81 to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Manager, Sales. This is an admitted position that the D.P.C. did meet to consider the promotion of the petitioner and other eligible candidates. Shri B.D. Sharma was the Chairman of this D.P.C. Dy General Manager (Personnel) and Chief Manager (Cost and Taxation) were other members of the D.P.C. The case of the petitioner is that this D.P.C. had recommended the promotion of the petitioner yet no promotion orders were issued and thus respondents 1 and 2 acted in a very unfair manner to the petitioner. Petitioner has made following averments in paras 13 and 14 of the writ petition: "13. That Shri Sharma maneouvred not to convened on 15.9.81 for consideration on the post of Manager Sales. This D.P.C. held its meeting on 15.9.81 in which Shri B.D. Sharma was Chairman, Dy. Petitioner has made following averments in paras 13 and 14 of the writ petition: "13. That Shri Sharma maneouvred not to convened on 15.9.81 for consideration on the post of Manager Sales. This D.P.C. held its meeting on 15.9.81 in which Shri B.D. Sharma was Chairman, Dy. General Manager Personnel Shri V.P. Java Kumar and the Chief Manager (cost and Taxation Shri O.P. Sharma participated in the D.P.C. and the petitioner learns that in this D.P.C. petitioner had been recommended for appointment for the post of Manager Sales. This has also not been taken kindly by Shri Sharma as no order for appointment has been issued so far. Either the D.P.C. proceedings were allowed to remain in dormant or Shri Sharma could manage to get the D.P.C. set aside, it in not know to the petitioner, but the petitioner has definite information that at/east two persons viz. Dy. General Manager (Personnel) and Chief Manager (Cost and Taxation) have found the petitioner suitable for the post of Manager Sales. 14. That when the D.P.C. of 15.9.81 had not been finalised and results were not declared, the petitioner again approached the Chairman cum Managing Director by filing a representation on 28.12.81 however copy of representation through proper channel was sent on 23.12.81 and fully explained in representation that on account of the deliberate malafide of Shri Sharma the Minutes of 15.9.89 D.P.C. have not been finalised an no order has followed. The copy of the representation is submitted herewith and market Ex. 3. Nothing has been heard in this regard." Upon such averments, petitioner has interalia praved that a direction be given to respondents to finalise the minutes of the D.P.C. held on 15.9.81. 26. Respondents 1 and 2 have given a very evasive and vague reply to these averments. Their plea is contained in para 7 of their reply, which reads as follows: "7. That the facts mentioned in para No. 13 to 16 of the writ petition have been stated in a manner calculated to create a wrong impression. The fact is that Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Sales Magager, in the pay scale of 1450-2000 was convened on Sept. 15, 1981. That the facts mentioned in para No. 13 to 16 of the writ petition have been stated in a manner calculated to create a wrong impression. The fact is that Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Sales Magager, in the pay scale of 1450-2000 was convened on Sept. 15, 1981. The Works Manager, Zinc Smalter, Debari who was one of members of Departmental Promotion Committee could not attend the meeting and the remaining three members met and considered the case of petitioner and also of the other eligible candidates for promotion. The deliberations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were inconclusive. Accordingly, another Departmental Promotion Committee was fixed on 25th January, 1982. In this meeting which was attended by all the members of Departmental Promotion Committee it was unanimously decided after taking into account all relevant facts that Shri Sanadhya, Deputy Sales Manager may be recommended for promotion. There is no truth in the allegation that the General Manager (Commercial) manoeuvred the whole case with the intention to eliminate the petitioner and see that any junior person was promoted. The Committee proceeded to assess the comparative merit of the petitioner and other eligible candidates. The allegation that General Manager (Commercial) Manoeuvred to get this commommendation, is wholly wrong as he was not the sole recommending authority nor final authority for its acceptance/rejection. The petitioner's grievance that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not meet earlier to finalise the recommendation for promotion is not correct. In fact the belated meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee has given the petitioner a handle to challenge the otherwise fair and just recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee because, as the new Cadre Scheme which provided for promotion on combined consideration of seniority, @merit and qualification came to be in force since 1st January 1981. Before that the promotion were based solely on consideration of merit and of the departmental Promotion Committee was convened earlier the petitioner would have little change whatever of being selected because the ACRs of other persons who was selected were superior of that character." The respondents have not denied that two members of the D.P.C. which met on 15.9.81 had found the petitioner fit for promotion. Hence, it can be safely assumed that the majority of the members of the D.P.C. at this meeting had found the petitioner suitable for promotion to the post of Sales Manager. 27. Hence, it can be safely assumed that the majority of the members of the D.P.C. at this meeting had found the petitioner suitable for promotion to the post of Sales Manager. 27. Contesting respondent has very vaguely said that 'the deliberation of the D.P.C. were inconclusive.' I fail to understand as to what the contesting respondent meant by saying so. In para 3 of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341 of 1982, the contesting respondent has made the following averment: "3. The fact is that the post of the Sales Manager could not be filled in pursuance of the first Departmental Promotion Committee on account of the fact that the proceedings before the Departmental Promotion Committee were inconclusive and due to a peculiar stalemate that came about the matter was referred to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and on finding that even the quorum of the Departmental Promotion Committee was not proper and there being no unanimity in the matter of selection and in the absence of the marking, specially discretionary marks no selection could be made." 28. Even Shri B.D. Sharma, who was chariman of the D.P.C. has not specifically controverted plea of the petitioner that the majority of the members of the D.P.C. had in fact found the petitioner suitable for promotion. He has contended himself by saying that what transpired at the D.P.C. meeting is continential. The averment does not specifically rebut the stand of the petitioner that in fact the two members of the D.P.C. out of three had found the petitioner suitable for promotion. Hence, as stated earlier and at cost of repetition, I have to accept the plea of the petitioner that the D.P.C. at its said meeting had in fact selected the petitioner for promotion. 29. Now, the contesting respondent has taken the pleas that the meeting of the D.P.C. 'was inconclusive' and due to peculiar stalemate matter was referred to CMD and there was no proper quorum. It has not been stated as to what was the peculiar stalemate. The contesting respondent shifted its stand by saying in a later reply 'the deliberation before this truncated D.P.C. whose constitution was not proper were inconclusive since they did not come to any unanimous decision.' To my mind, it hardly lies in the mouth of the contesting respondent to say that the constitution of the D.P.C. was not proper. The contesting respondent shifted its stand by saying in a later reply 'the deliberation before this truncated D.P.C. whose constitution was not proper were inconclusive since they did not come to any unanimous decision.' To my mind, it hardly lies in the mouth of the contesting respondent to say that the constitution of the D.P.C. was not proper. How the constitution of the D.P.C. was not proper has not been specifically stated, though with regard to quorum, it has been stated that 'works Manager Debari, who was one of the members of the D.P.C. could not attend the meeting, the remaining three members met and considered the case of the petitioner and also of the other eligible candidates for promotion. The deliberation before this truncated D.P.C. (whose constitution was not complete, were inconclusive since they did not come to any unanimous decision. All members agreed that the matter be referred to CMD. The CMD thereupon after considering all the relevant circumstances directed that the Committee should meet again and make recommendation after awarding discretionary marks.' Once more, the contesting respondent has shifted its stand, At this stage, I may point out that all these facts must have been within the knowledge of Shri B.D. Sharma, who did not file his affidavit. He has not deposed to any of these facts. Likewise, the facts were best within the knowledge of the CMD, His affidavit has also not been filed. The record of the D.P.C. that met on this date has also not been produced before the Court for perusal. I, therefore, find that the contesting respondent has failed to rebut the case of the petitioner that out of the three members of the D.P.C. two members did recommend the name 'of the petitioner' for promotion but thereafter for reasons best known to the authorities, promotion orders were not passed. I may point out that no rules pertaining to quorum of the D.P.C. have been placed on record and hence it is difficult to accept the contention of the contesting respondent that there was no quorum. 30. To my mind, the undisputed position which emerges is that the D.P.C. consisted of four members including Shri B.D. Sharma. One member did not attend the meeting yet the D.P.C. proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner. 30. To my mind, the undisputed position which emerges is that the D.P.C. consisted of four members including Shri B.D. Sharma. One member did not attend the meeting yet the D.P.C. proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner. Had there been no quorum the D.P.C. would not and could not have proceeded to consider the cases of the petitioner and other eligible candidates. Hence, it can be safely taken that there was a quorum. Had there been no quorum, there would have been no occasion for two members to find the petitioner fit and suitable for promotion, a fact which has been asserted by the petitioner and has not been specifically denied or rebutted by the respondents in any manner. This shows that the D.P.C. by two to one recommended the name of the petitioner. This alone explains the stand that the proceedings were incenclusive and there was a stalemate. It appears that Shri B.D. Sharma did not agree with the recommendations of the majority and hence there was a stalemate and this is why orders of promotion of the petitioner were not issued. It is only in this light that the plea of the contesting respondent that the proceedings could be taken to be inconclusive or the theory of stalemate could make sense. When viewed in this light, it becomes clear that the petitioner's name had been recommended by the majority of the members of D.P.C. and his promotion could not have been withheld merely because the Chairman of the D.P.C. did not agree with the majority view. It has not been shown to me that the Chairman of the D.P.C. or for that matter the CMD had any power to voting recommendations of the majority of members of D.P.C. 31. No rule has been brought to my notice that the recommendation of the D.P.C. to be binding should have been unanimous and that the recommendation of majority of the members present and deliberating could have been Ignored or bye passed. The normal rule is that unless a unanimous recommendation is made mandatory to be binding, a recommendation by the majority of the members present and voting should be binding. 32. The normal rule is that unless a unanimous recommendation is made mandatory to be binding, a recommendation by the majority of the members present and voting should be binding. 32. When it is so, the contesting respondent was bound to promote the petitioner in consequence of the recommendations of the majiority of the D.P.C. The action of the contesting respondents in not promoting the petitioner is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable and improper in the circumstances of the case. Though the action may not be actuated by malafides on part of Shri B.D. Sharma, yet the action of Shri B.D. Sharma in getting the recommendations of the majority checkmated suffers from malice in law, there being no reason why Shri B.D. Sharma should not have accepted the majority opinion in good grace. Hence, to mind, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted in consequence of the recommendation of the majority of the members of the D.P.C. which met on 15.9.81 and his promotion orders ought to have been passed within a reasonable period after the conclusion of the meeting of the D.P.C. 33. The view I have taken of the facts, does not make it imperative for me to consider the other contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the subsequent events and I need not discuss if the promotions of Sanadhya, George and Shukla were proper and valid or not. Suffice it to say that once petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Manager in consequence of result of the D.P.C. that met on 15.9.81, there was no occasion for the DJP.C to consider him for promotion at a later date and hence his rejection on later occasions could not come in the way of his promotion on the basis of the recommendation of the majiority of the members of the D.P.C. which met on 15.9.81. 34. NJo, in the aforesaid back ground, I may take up the contentions raised on behalf of respondents. It has been urged that when there are allegations and counter allegations of malafides, the Court would not make a reving enquiry into such a disputed question of fact. I have alrready held that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of malafides against Shri B.D. Sharma. Hence, I need not be detained by this contention. It has been urged that when there are allegations and counter allegations of malafides, the Court would not make a reving enquiry into such a disputed question of fact. I have alrready held that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of malafides against Shri B.D. Sharma. Hence, I need not be detained by this contention. Certain rulings have been cited on this score but I need not be detained by them as well. 35. A further contention was raised that promotion is not a matter of right and there can not be a vested right in promotion and hence this Court should not interfere with the selections made by the D.P.C. which met later on. In my opinion, this also need not detain me because as stated earlier, the petitioner had in fact been recommended by the majority of the members of the D.P.C. After due selection, he had a right to be promoted. A contention was also raised that petitioner was precluded from alleging malafides on part of Shri B.D. Sharma because petitioner chose to appear before D.P.C. headed by shri Sharma. To my mind, this argument is also of no avail. 36. Now, I may deal with the contention that the petitioner should be held disentitled to any relief because he made reckless and unfounded allegations of malafides against Shri B.D. Sharma, which the petitioner has failed to substantiate. This is true that the petitioner made -reckless allegations of malafides against Shri B.D. Sharma and the allegations have not been proved as indicated earlier. But, I find that petitioner has succeeded in showing that even though the D.P.C. which met on 15.9.81, had selected him for promotion by majority, yet it was the action of Shri B.D. Sharma, which resulted in a needless stalemate, depriving the petitioner of his rights. Hence, even though the conduct of the petitioner was not becoming the office he was holding, yet it would result in grave injustice of the petitioner is thrown out on this ground. 37. In the result, I accept both the writ petitions partly and direct the respondents I and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Manager as a result of the recommendations of D.P.C. which met on 15.9.81 with all consequential benefits. I declare that his rejection by later D.P.Cs. 37. In the result, I accept both the writ petitions partly and direct the respondents I and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Manager as a result of the recommendations of D.P.C. which met on 15.9.81 with all consequential benefits. I declare that his rejection by later D.P.Cs. is of no consequence and is not binding in any way on the petitioner, in as much as he ought to have been promoted in consequence of the D.P.C. that met on dated 15.9.81. Since his juniors have been promoted by the later D.P.Cs. respondents 1 and 2 directed to create a supernumerary post of Manager for the petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of the case, within one month of this order and appoint him to such promotional post within the said period. Since respondents Sanadhya, George and Shukla are holding promotional post for a very long period, I need not upset their promotions. Respondents 1 and 2 shall also pay to petitioner the arrears of salary on account of such promotion also within the said period. Normally, I would have allowed the petitioner interest on the arrears of salary as a consequence of his promotion but I refrain from passing this order because of improper conduct referred to above. For this very reason, I would not allow him costs of these two writ petitions and he should bear his own costs. 38. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.Order accordingly. *******