(1) THIS court issued notice on 30/11/1992 on the representation that the case of the petitioner was identical to the case of V.K. Jain and he is entitled to relief granted by the tribunal to V.K. Jain. When the State had come up in appeal by way of Special Leave Petition before this court against the order of the tribunal passed in V.K. Jain case, since no stay was granted, in the meanwhile, the DPC considered the case of V.K. Jain and kept it in a sealed cover. By order dated 16/8/1990 the above fact was brought to the notice of this court and this court stated that "in the circumstances, the petition has become infructuous and is disposed of" and it was specifically observed that "we would only like to say that we do not express any opinion on the points decided by the tribunal". (2) IT is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in this petition that the DPC met in 1982. They have given the grading to the officers as good, very good, excellent etc. and considered the cases of all those persons eligible for promotion in that year. On the basis of grading, since the petitioner was only good, he could not get into the merit list and accordingly he could not be promoted. In the year 1985 for the vacancies which arose in 1983, the DPC met and again considered the case of the petitioner. He was found good and came into the merit list. He was accordingly promoted for the vacancies which arose in the year 1983. Therefore, the only question that emerged is whether the non-promotion of the petitioner for the vacancies which arose up to the year 1982 is valid in law. The tribunal has gone into and considered the case and was not inclined to accept the case of the petitioner. (3) IT is true that there were some adverse remarks against V.K. Jain and that the tribunal, in fact, appreciated the evidence in making the grading which is not warranted in the disposal of the matter and given certain directions. Since this court had expressly left that question open, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in its evaluation by itself how the DPC has to consider the relative merits of the candidates. Since this court had expressly left that question open, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in its evaluation by itself how the DPC has to consider the relative merits of the candidates. It is not the case that the procedure laid down in evaluating the relative merits was not considered by the DPC. Therefore, the observation of the tribunal in V.K. Jain case is not right in law. (4) IT is further stated by Shri Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the method adopted by the DPC was commented upon by the Tribunal of Rajasthan and the petitioner also is entitled to the same direction given to the petitioner in those cases. We are afraid that we cannot go on evaluating the respective contentions from stage to stage. What we have to consider is whether the tribunal was right in its consideration of the case of the petitioner before it. We do not find any illegality in the approach adopted by the Tribunal. (5) IT is next contended in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner that one Mr G.S. Narang made a representation to the President and the President directed the DPC to reconsider the matter and grant him appropriate relief according to the rules and that the petitioner is a.lso entitled to the same benefit. We are not having any material before us as to under what circumstances the case of G.S. Narang was directed for reconsideration by the Review DPC. Accordingly we do not find any ground warranting interference. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.