B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is a Junior Industries Inspector has challenged in this petition the promotion orders dated April 7 1981 (Annexure C) and dated September 5 1981 (Annexure F) of promoting his juniors and also prayed to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner with effect from April 8 1981 with all consequential benefits on such promotion. By way of interim relief it is prayed that respondent No. 2 be restrained from implementing and/or giving effect to the promotion orders dated April 7 1981 and September 5 1981 and he be further restrained from giving charge of the post of Senior Industries Inspector to person junior to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THIS petition was filed on 17th September 1981 and placed for orders on 18-9-81. On 18-9-81 this petition was straight way admitted and Rule was issued and notice as to interim relief was made returnable on October 13 1981 and it was directed that one post of Senior Industries Inspector be kept vacant till October 31 1981 That ad-interim relief was confirmed on 20-10-81. ( 3 ) IT may be stated that when promotion order (Annexure C) dated 74-81 was issued the petitioner challenged the same by way of Special Civil Application No. 1221/81 which was disposed of on the statement made by the learned Advocate for the respondents (Annexure D) which is as under : "special Civil Application No. 1221 of 1981. . . . . . Coram : P. D. Desai J. (April 29 1981) oral JUDGMENT : mr. M. S. Shah states on behalf of the second respondent as follows upon instructions received from Mr. H. J. Patel Officer on Special Duty who is present in the Court. (1) In view of the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 980 of 1981 decided on April 24 1981 the adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner for the period 1978-79 will be ignored for the purpose of considering his case for promotion. (2) The adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner for the period 1979-80 have been communicated to the petitioner and his representation against those adverse remarks would be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. (2) The adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner for the period 1979-80 have been communicated to the petitioner and his representation against those adverse remarks would be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. (3) After the disposal of the said representation the petitioners case for promotion would be considered by the competent authority and necessary decision in the matter would be taken as early as possible thereafter. In view of these statements the petition does not survive and Mrs. Mehta withdraws the same. The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Interim relief vacated. It may be stated that on behalf of the petitioner the contention was inter alia that the criterion for promotion is seniority simpliciter. This contention was controverted on behalf of the competent authority. However it is not necessary to go into this question at this stage and therefore the Court does not express any opinion on this question. " As per the statements made in the petition and the order the adverse remarks for the period 1978-79 i. e. from 14-78 to 31-3-79 has to be ignored for purposes of considering the case for promotion of the petitioner. The representation made by petitioner against the adverse remarks communicated to him for the period 1979-80 i. e. from 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 was to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and after the disposal of that representation his case for promotion was to be considered by the competent authority and necessary decision in the matter was to be taken as early as possible. ( 4 ) IT seems that before the representation of the petitioner against the adverse remarks for the year 1979-80 was disposed of respondent No. 2 by his order dated 5-9-81 promoted other juniors of the petitioner (Annexure F) and thereafter the petitioner was conveyed on 14-9-81 that his representation against the adverse remarks for the year 1979-80 is rejected (Annexure E ). Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this petition and challenged the promotion order of his juniors dated September 5 1981 (Annexure F) as well as earlier promotion order dated April 7 1981 (Annexure G ). ( 5 ) MRS. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this petition and challenged the promotion order of his juniors dated September 5 1981 (Annexure F) as well as earlier promotion order dated April 7 1981 (Annexure G ). ( 5 ) MRS. Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner raised four contentions viz : (1) The criteria for promotion is strictly according to seniority and therefore the petitioner ought to have been promoted when his juniors were promoted on September 5 1981 and April 7 1981 (2) Even if the criteria is not seniority but seniority-cum-merit then also there was no positive demerit of the petitioner and therefore he ought to have been promoted when his juniors were promoted. (3) The Selection Committee ought to have considered the adverse remarks for preceding three years when they met to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and the adverse remarks conveyed to the petitioner are also not such which could come in the way of promotion of the petitioner. (4) The petitioner was in fact allowed to cross Efficiency Bar as Junior Industries Inspector on 5 and therefore the adverse remarks conveyed to the petitioner for the year 1979-80 i. e. from 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 were not proper and ought not to have been made against the petitioner and they ought to have been ignored by the Committee while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. " ( 6 ) AS against this Mr. Mehul Rathod learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner in light of the order passed by this Court (Coram : P. D. Desai J.) on April 29 1981 in Special Civil Application No. 1221/81 and the adverse remarks for the year 1978-79 i. e. from 1 to 31-3-79 were ignored by the Selection Committee. He submitted that the case of the petitioner according to his seniority was considered by the departmental promotion committee on 1-8-79 but due to non-communication of the adverse remarks his consideration was deferred till the next meeting of the Committee which was held on 23-7-81 and 4-8-81 but he was not found suitable Further consideration as on 23-7-81 was deferred in view of the undecided representation made by the petitioner against the adverse remarks for the year 1979-80. That representation was rejected and the said decision was communicated to the petitioner on 14-9-81 (Annexure E) and thereafter the case of promotion of the petitioner was considered in its meetings held on 19-10-82 24 and 23-8-88 but he was not found suitable for promotion and therefore he was not promoted. He further submitted that on 22-7-87 he was censured for not submitting inspection report and was visited with punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect. Not only that he was granted earned leaves from 11-9-89 to 8-12-89 and he had to report for duty on 11-8-89 but till to-day he has not reported for duty. Notices sent to him at his residential address have been returned unserved as he has left the country. Thus the petitioner has lost total interest in the service and he is not keen to serve the respondents. He therefore submitted that this petition be dismissed. ( 7 ) TO appreciate that rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties the statements showing the service record of the petitioner which is produced before this Court is required to be reproduced : Office of The Industries Commissioner : Gandhinagar Statement Showing The Service Record of Shri N. N. Patel Jr. Industries Inspector - Sr. Year Adverse Remarks Whether adverse If representation is D. P. C. decision Remarks No. remarks were made result communicated thereof 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.- - - - - - 2.- - - - - - 3.- - - - - - 4. 1-4-78 to (1) Not maintain index book under Yes communicated - DPC was held on 1-8-79 Honble court has 31-3-79 Weights and Measures Act. on 24-3-81 for the and it was decided to passed an orde dtd period of 1-4-78 to defer the case of the 5-5-81 to ignorc. R. of 31-3-79 next meeting. 78-79 for promotion. (2) Legging behind in verification - - - - stamping inspection surprise visit and prosecution. (3) Not fit for promotion - - - - 5. 1-4-79 to -do- Yes communicated Yes - - 31-4-80 on 24-3-81 for the period of 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 6. 1-4-80 to No adverse remarks - - 31-4-81 7. 1-4-80 to (1) Less inspection work Yes - DPC was held on As per the 31-3-82 (2) Default in panchanama in case - - 23-7-81 and 4-8-81. 1-4-79 to -do- Yes communicated Yes - - 31-4-80 on 24-3-81 for the period of 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 6. 1-4-80 to No adverse remarks - - 31-4-81 7. 1-4-80 to (1) Less inspection work Yes - DPC was held on As per the 31-3-82 (2) Default in panchanama in case - - 23-7-81 and 4-8-81. It statement-furnished for of Food Corporation of India. was decided to decide the DPC 24-2-87 it is (3) Corruption the case after obtaining stated that different one year C. R. for 81-82. adverse entries were communicated. (4) Harassment to others - - - - ( 8 ) THE above statements shows that except for one year i. e. 1980-81 adverse remarks have been recorded in the service book of the petitioner from 1-4-78 to 31-3-82 and the same have been communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner has made a representation against the adverse remarks of one year only i. e. for 1979-80 which was rejected by the authority. When at the earliest point of time the departmental promotion committed could consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on 19-10-82 there were serious adverse remarks against the petitioner including of corruption. Thus taking into consideration the adverse remarks for the period from 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 and 1-4-81 to 31-3-82 it cannot be said that the decision of the Selection Committee of not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion is illegal or unjust and calls for interference at the hands of this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner has claimed that the criteria for promotion is only seniority in fact it is seniority-cum-merit and from the adverse remarks stated above it cannot be said that the decision of the authority was wrong. There was positive demerit of the petitioner and therefore he was rightly not considered for promotion. Having regard to the averments made in the reply affidavit and other relevant circumstances on the record I do not find any substance in any of the submissions made by Mrs. Mehta for the petitioner. In fact the petitioner cannot again challenge the earlier order of promotion dated 7-4-81 because that was challenged in the earlier petition being S. C. A. No. 1221/81 which was disposed of on April 29 1981 by this Court. Mehta for the petitioner. In fact the petitioner cannot again challenge the earlier order of promotion dated 7-4-81 because that was challenged in the earlier petition being S. C. A. No. 1221/81 which was disposed of on April 29 1981 by this Court. That apart the subsequent order of promotion promoting persons junior to the petitioner cannot also be challenged by the petitioner in absence of those persons being made party-respondents to this petition and therefore also this petition is required to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THE last submission made by Mrs. Mehta that the petitioner was in fact allowed to cross Efficiency Bar as Junior Industries Inspector on 5-10-79 and therefore the adverse remarks conveyed to the petitioner for the year 1979-80 i. e. from 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 were not proper and ought not to have been made against the petitioner and they ought to have been ignored by the Committee while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion has also no substance and it has to be rejected in light of the unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : J. M. Panchal J.) in S. C. A. No. 1140/84 decided on 19 wherein it has been held that the correct proposition of law emerging from the decision of the Constitution Bench is that Departmental Promotion Committees taking into consideration of confidential reports to which an employee has been given no chance to make representation is merely fortuitous and it is the duty of the committee to take note of adverse remarks and come to a decision on consideration of them. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid decision there is no substance or merit in this petition and accordingly it fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Petition Dismissed. .