Judgment :- The petitioner who is a Circle Inspector of Police in the service of the 1st respondent challenges non-inclusion of his name in the select list for appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police drawn up by Departmental Promotion Committee for the year 1992. Challenge is also against an order passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee rejecting his petition for review of the list. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1974. He was then promoted as Circle Inspector of Police on 7-4-1983. The Departmental Promotion Committee prepared a select list of qualified Circle Inspectors of Police and published the same after approval by the Government on 14-1-1992. Ext. P1 select list would show that petitioner has been superseded as three of his juniors namely Bhaskaran Ponnan, V.C. Soman and T.K. Venugopalan. They had been included as serial Nos. 28,29 and 30, while petitioner's name was not included. It is contended by the petitioner that the confidential reports of the petitioner for the previous years including for the period of three years preceding the date of meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee to draw up the select list of Circle Inspectors of Police were clean and constantly outstanding, except for a short period during the year 1990. It is alleged that the petitioner has the distinction of being the recipient of three Cash Rewards and 23 Good Service Entries during the above period. Two adverse remarks had been made for the period from 1-1-90 to 4-6-90 and 14-1-90 to 30-3-1990 have been noted by Sri Viswanath Filial, Superintendent of Police and Sri.K.P. Somarajan, D.I.G., respectively. Ext. P2 is Annual Confidential report on Circle Inspector. Itis seen from Ext. P2 that another Superintendent of Police as reporting the petitioner as a good officer in his Confidential Report for the immediate later ie., on 5-6-1990 to 31-12-1990. 3. The petitioner made a representation before the Inspector General of Police under Ext. P3 dated 6-6-91 to get the adverse remarks in his confidential reports expunged. There was some delay in passing orders on his representation. He therefore sent reminders Exts. P3(a) and P3(b) dated 24-3-1992 and 28-5-1992. In the meanwhile, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 11-12-1991 and prepared Ext. P1 select list superseding the petitioner as mentioned earlier. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation dated 11-2-1992 (Ext. There was some delay in passing orders on his representation. He therefore sent reminders Exts. P3(a) and P3(b) dated 24-3-1992 and 28-5-1992. In the meanwhile, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 11-12-1991 and prepared Ext. P1 select list superseding the petitioner as mentioned earlier. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation dated 11-2-1992 (Ext. P4) before the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee against the supersession. The above representation was rejected by a cryptic reply that the petitioner is superseded on valid ground, therefore, his appeal was rejected. After receipt of Ext. P5 the petitioner received another communication dated 10-10-1992 (Ext. P6) directing him to be present before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 20-12-1992. The petitioner presented himself before the D.P.C. and brought to the notice of the D.P.C. his excellent service record and contended that the adverse remarks made against him are unjustified. He also brought to the notice of the D.P.C. that a petition before the Inspector General of Police for expunging the adverse remarks is pending. Ext. P7 is a copy of the written submission which he made before the D.P.C. and Ext. P7(a) is the details of the rewards awarded to him. 4. The Director General of Police issued Ext. P8 order dated 22-12-1994 not only expunging adverse remarks in petitioner's confidential report but also paying complements to the petitioner. The Director General of Police has remarked that the performance of the petitioner during the tenure in the capacity as Circle Inspector of Police for the period from 10-7-1987 to 18-1-1991 was outstanding. On receipt of Ext. P8 order the petitioner tiled a review petition before the Convenor of the D.P.C. bringing to the notice of the Committee the fact that the ad verse remarks noted in his confidential report have been expunged. In the meanwhile, an oral enquiry ordered against him as per order dated 30-11-1991 by the Inspector General of Police had culminated in Order dated 14-1-1993 exonerating the charges levelled against him. Ext. P9 is the copy of the order. The above fact was also brought to the notice of the D.P.C. Ext. P10 is the copy of the review petition thus filed by the petitioner and Ext. P11 is reminder. 5. Ultimately, Ext. P10 review petition was disposed of by the D.P.C. under Ext. P12 order dated 20-8-1993 forwarded to the petitioner under Ext. P12(a) letter dated 6-9-1993. Ext. The above fact was also brought to the notice of the D.P.C. Ext. P10 is the copy of the review petition thus filed by the petitioner and Ext. P11 is reminder. 5. Ultimately, Ext. P10 review petition was disposed of by the D.P.C. under Ext. P12 order dated 20-8-1993 forwarded to the petitioner under Ext. P12(a) letter dated 6-9-1993. Ext. P12 reads as follows: "With reference to your representation cited I am to inform you that you were superseded from the select list of Circle inspectors fit for promotion as Dy. Supdt. of Police for the year 1992 not only because an oral enquiry was pending against you at mat time but also because your confidential records for the second half of 1990 were unsatisfactory. Therefore, your request for inclusion of your name in the select list of Circle Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Dy. Supills, of Police for 1992 is rejected." The petitioner attacks Ext. P12 order as having been issued in most arbitrary and unfair manner. The only reason given in Ext. P12 in justification the supersession of the petitioner was that his confidential records for the second half of 1990 were unsatisfactory. It is the entries in respect of the very same period which had been expunged by the Director General of Police under Ext. P8 order dated 22-12-1992. At the time of meeting of the D.P.C. on 10-12-1991 the petitioner had not received any memo of charges in respect of the matter regarding which oral enquiry was issued on 30-11-1991 and intimation of which was received by him on 9-12-1991 one day prior to the date of convening of the D.P.C. The petitioner would contend that at the time when the D.P.C. met, there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against him as no memo of charges was issued at that time. In support of the above contention he relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.U. Janaki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010. In any view of the matter before Ext. P12 order was issued the petitioner had been exonerated of all the charges into which oral enquiry was ordered at the time the D.P.C. met in the year 1991. Two reasons given in Ext. P12 are non-existent and therefore Ext. P12 has to be taken as an order passed without any reason at all. 6. P12 order was issued the petitioner had been exonerated of all the charges into which oral enquiry was ordered at the time the D.P.C. met in the year 1991. Two reasons given in Ext. P12 are non-existent and therefore Ext. P12 has to be taken as an order passed without any reason at all. 6. The petitioner has stated that in the case of other officers review petitions had been entertained and their names had been included in the additional list published by the D.P.C. as is evident from Exts. P15 and P14. In the case of Sri.P.K. Kuttappan whose review application was also rejected by the D.P.C. but he approached this Court by filing O.P.No.1230/93 and this Court directed the D.P.C. to consider his name again. Pursuant thereto Ext. P14 was issued including his name also. The petitioner would submit that he is entitled to have his name included in the list by ranking him as 27-A just below Sri.P. Velappan Nair ranked as No.27 in the Ext. P1 list. Exts. P13 and P14 would show that persons who were superseded had been thereafter included in the list giving them ranking just below the seniors after considering their review applications. It is further contended by the petitioner that promotions have been made to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police upto rank No. 26. In Ext. P1 list According to him, 7 vacancies are now available and he is entitled to the 2nd vacancy ie., after promotion of his immediate senior Sri. P Velappan Nair. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. After explaining the circumstances under which the petitioner's name was not included in Ext. P1 select list, it is admitted in para. 7 of the counter affidavit that the adverse remarks in the petitioner's confidential report for the period from 1-1-1990 to 31-12-1990 were expunged by proceedings dated 22-12-1992 of the Director General of Police. It is contended in the counter affidavit that while considering the case of the petitioner for inclusion of the select list when the D.P.C. met on 11-12-1991 and 20-12-1992.it was found that an oral enquiry was pending against him and there were adverse remarks in his confidential report for the year 1990. It is contended in the counter affidavit that while considering the case of the petitioner for inclusion of the select list when the D.P.C. met on 11-12-1991 and 20-12-1992.it was found that an oral enquiry was pending against him and there were adverse remarks in his confidential report for the year 1990. The order passed by the Director General of Police expunging the adverse remarks in his confidential report and exonerating him from all the charges levelled against him were after the meeting of the D.P.C. and the adhoc D.P.C. It was under these circumstances the DPC did not include the petitioner's name in the select list. It is further contended that no revision of the select list can be made even though the petitioner was exonerated from the charges in respect of which oral enquiry was conducted, since the order exonerating him was passed after one year of the date of publication of the select list. According to the 1st respondent as per the provisions contained under R.28(8)(a) and (b) and R.29 of KS & SSR, no revision of select list can be made on the basis of re-evaluation of the confidential report after one year from the date of publication of the select list. Therefore even if he has been exonerated from the charges his case cannot be considered because the order has been issued beyond one year. 8. I find no merit in the contentions raised in the counter affidavit in support of Ext. P12 order rejecting the petitioner's application for review. The petitioner has submitted application for expunging the adverse remarks in the confidential report as early as on 6-6-91 the order passed by the Director General of Police on 22-12-1992. It is not fault of the petitioner that so much del ay was caused i n passing order expunging the adverse remarks in his confidential report. So also the respondent has no case that it was due to any default on the part of the petitioner the order exonerating him from the charges in respect of which an oral enquiry was conducted passed only on 14-1-1993. In any view of the matter, I find the proviso relied on by the 1st respondent limiting the period of one year after the date of publication of the select list has no application in petitioner's case. In any view of the matter, I find the proviso relied on by the 1st respondent limiting the period of one year after the date of publication of the select list has no application in petitioner's case. Rule 28(8) (a) reads as follows: "The select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the manner referred to above shall be published by the convenor of the Committee after approval by the Government. Normally no revision of such select list shall be made under R.29 on the basis of re-valuation of the confidential reports. However, if any officer who has been superseded and whose name has not been included in the list, makes, within one month from the date of publication of the list, a written representation to the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee requesting a revision of the list, the Committee shall consider the representation. After going through the representation, if the committee feels that some clarification should be obtained from the superseded officer by personal hearing, it may do so and on the basis of such representation and personal hearing if it is of the view that the list already prepared should be revised, it may make a recommendation to that effect. The list shall then be revised accordingly and published by the Convenor after approval by the Government. Note: Promotions from the list published by the D.P.C. shall be provisional and the list will be subject to revision if, after following the procedure, it is found that the list requires revision". There is no limitation prescribed for the D.P.C. to review the list on the basis of representation submitted by superseded officer to revise the list. Clause (b) of sub-rule (8) and proviso thereunder read as follows: "(b) Wherever Government consider that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant a departure from the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee in the public interest, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall be given afresh opportunity to consider the proposals of the Government to revise the select list. If on receipt of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, Government still feel that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant a departure from the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee in the public interest, they may take a decision accordingly. If on receipt of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, Government still feel that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant a departure from the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee in the public interest, they may take a decision accordingly. In that case it will be open to the Public Service Commission to include the matter in the Annual Report: Provided that the power under this paragraph shall not be exercised after the expiry of one year from the date on which the select list was prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee." The provision contained under the proviso is applicable only to Cl.(b) and not to Cl.(a). Clause (b) gives power to the Government to act in a certain manner under exceptional circumstances. While exercising the above power it is provided that no order can be issued after expiry of one year from the date on which the select list was prepared by the D.P.C. If the provisions contained in the proviso is made applicable to sub-rule (8)(a), it will cause great injustice and hardship to the concerned officers. Since in almost all cases the orders expunging adverse remarks or the culmination of an enquiry exonerating the officer would not be issued with in one year from the date on which the select list was prepared and if that be so for no fault of theirs, the officers will be denied inclusion in the select list and thereby due promotion. 9. In the light of the above discussion, I am inclined to set aside Exts. P5 and P12 and I do so. As far as relief to be granted to the petitioner is concerned, I find it not necessary to relegate his case again to the D.P.C. as the only reason given in Ext. P12 are oral enquiry and the adverse remarks in the confidential report for the year 1990. Admittedly, the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges into which enquiry was ordered and the adverse remarks have been expunged by the Director General of Police under Ext. P8 order. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent no other reason is given for superseding the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to include the petitioner's name in Ext. P8 order. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent no other reason is given for superseding the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to include the petitioner's name in Ext. P1 select list by placing him below rank No. 27 and immediate steps will be taken for publication of the revised select list. There will also be a direction that further promotion shall he made on the basis of the above rank which the petitioner is entitled to get in Ext. P1 select list as revised. The Original Petition stands allowed as above.