C. M. Nayar ( 1 ) THE present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment dated April 14, 1977, passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi which upheld the Order of the trial court dated July 26, 1974. ( 2 ) THE appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration to the effect that he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable and the Order dated June 1,1970, rejecting his prayer for promotion be held as null and void. ( 3 ) THE appellant who has since retired on September 30, 1994, was in police service at Delhi as constable having joined this Department in the year 1955. It is stated that his record of service throughout was good and the appellant also earned several commendation certificates from his superiors and the next higher post which could be offered to him on promotion was that of the Head Constable. The appellant passed the test in this regard and was, therefore, ripe and eligible for consideration to the post of Head Constable. His name was brought on the promotion list dated November 25, 1961 which, it is contended, meant that on the availability of vacancy he was entitled to promotion and appointment on higher post as a matter of right. The appellant was involved in some minor incident sometime in the year 1961. He along with other four officers were on duty. A bull came chasing a cow and that blocked the traffic and an enquiry was held into this alleged incident and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer the Superintendent of Police awarded the punishment of forfeiture of three years approved service and also suspended consideration for promotion for that period by order dated December 14, 1961. ( 4 ) THE appellant felt aggrieved by the above said Order and preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the Inspector General of police and by that order forfeiture of approved service was reduced from 3 years to one year. This order was approved by the Lt. Governor in the second appeal. The appellant s name had earlier appeared in List-A prepared under Rule 13. 5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as applicable to Delhi. This order was approved by the Lt. Governor in the second appeal. The appellant s name had earlier appeared in List-A prepared under Rule 13. 5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as applicable to Delhi. This list is framed of all the eligible persons who are to be considered for further promotion. The name of the petitioner, accordingly, was removed from the said list-A as a result of the order of punishment passed, as referred to above. ( 5 ) IT is an admitted case of the parties that subsequent to the above said order of the Superintendent of Police, the appellant was not brought again on the said list- A and his future prospects of promotion remained in abeyance. The appellant was aggrieved by the non inclusion of his name in the said list as well as of his non promotion and filed this suit for declaration on September 7, 1970 claiming that he had all the requisite qualifications for promotion and he ought to have been considered for further promotion. It was also brought to the notice of the trial court that many of his juniors had already been promoted and although he had requested the authorities for consideration of his name, there was no response. The suit was contested on various grounds and it was alleged that the matter in question was not justiciable and there was no ground for grant of declaration that the order of forfeiture of approved service was not rightly passed. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties: 1. Whether the defendants No. 2 and 3 have legal entity and can be sued? 2. Whether the plaintiff did not possess requisite qualifications for promotion as alleged in para No. 3 of the written statement? 3. Whether the instant matter is justiciable? 4. Whether the omission to consider plaintiff s name for promotion violates Articles 14 and 16. of the Constitution as alleged in para 13 of the plaint? 5. Relief. 2. Whether the plaintiff did not possess requisite qualifications for promotion as alleged in para No. 3 of the written statement? 3. Whether the instant matter is justiciable? 4. Whether the omission to consider plaintiff s name for promotion violates Articles 14 and 16. of the Constitution as alleged in para 13 of the plaint? 5. Relief. ( 6 ) THE trial court came to the conclusion that the suit against respondents 2 and 3 was not maintainable, the matter was not justiciable and the appellant did not possess the necessary qualifications for promotion and the omission to consider his name did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the suit was dismissed on July 26,1974. The appellant felt aggrieved by that order and filed an appeal in the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the name of the appellant stood removed from List-A and he had not been considered for being included in that list again. Consequently, he could not be promoted. However, the learned judge left it open to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant in their wisdom and in its right perspective. Paragraph 14 of the judgment reads as follows: "14. Though, I am dismissing the appeal being devoid of any merit, it is only hoped that the authorities concerned in their wisdom would again considerthe case of the appellant in its right perspective and see whether his name can be considered for being re-admitted in that list A which has so far alluded him from a great distance. It appears from the record that the appellant, with the exception of that unfortunate incident which led to his punishment, has a good record. A single slip at a distant past should not stagnate his future career. " ( 7 ) THE short question which has been raised in this appeal is, as to whether, the name of the appellant which was removed from List A, which disentitled him from promotion, would remain operative for his entire service career and whether his name could be included in that list atleast from the date of expiry of his punishment period for the alleged misconduct. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was bound to be considered for promotion after the expiry of six months period from the order of Superintendent of Police dated December 14, 1961 and that, in any case, he was bound to be considered for promotion after the expiry of period of forfeiture of approved service which in the present case was only for one year. ( 8 ) THERE is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was punished with forfeiture of three years approved service by order dated December 14, 1961, which period was subsequently reduced by the appellate authority to one year by order dated October 5, 1962. Therefore, the forfeiture of approved service was reduced from three years to one year. The order of forfeiture is not impugned in this appeal nor the same was impugned before the courts below. This appeal, accordingly, will have to be decided on the basis of the validity of non-consideration for promotion by not including the name of the appellant in List-A even after the expiry of one year. The provisions of rule 16. 1 (3) of the Rules as it existed at. the relevant time indicates that such punishment which has been inflicted on the appellant falls in the category of major punishment. The said provision reads as follows: " (3) For the purposes of these rules the term "major Punishment" shall be held to mean any authorised punishment of reduction, withholding of increments, forfeiture of approved service, dismissal and every judicial conviction on a criminal charge. "rule 13. 8-A (1) then comes into play and this provision clearly lays down that the infliction of any major punishment shall be a bar to admission to or retention in lists A,b and C. This rule reads as follows: "13. "rule 13. 8-A (1) then comes into play and this provision clearly lays down that the infliction of any major punishment shall be a bar to admission to or retention in lists A,b and C. This rule reads as follows: "13. 8 A-Disqualification for admission to or Retention in Lists A,b or C:- (1) The infliction of any major punishment shall be a bar to admission to or retention in lists A,b and C, provided that (a) for special reasons to be recorded by the superintendent in each case, and subject to confirmation by the Deputy Inspector-General, this disqualification may be waived and (b) after six months continuous good conduct in the case of censure or confinement to quarters or on expiry of the period of reduction in the case of reduction for a specified period a constable may be re-admitted at the discretion of the superintendent. " ( 9 ) THE perusal of this rule indicates that the delinquent employee who had been punished in the manner, as the appellant had been punished, could be validly removed from list A provided that the Superintendent of Police, subject to confirmation by Deputy Inspector General of Police, could waive this dis-qualification after six months continuous good conduct or on the expiry of period of reduction in the case of reduction for a specified period and in this situation, the appellant could be readmitted in list A at the discretion of the Superintendent of police. The facts of the present case would indicate that the petitioner was punished with forfeiture of one year approved service by the authorities and thereafter he continuously remained removed from List A and could not be considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court held that the disqualification having admittedly been not waived and as the name of the appellant was removed vide order dated March 26, 1962, he could not be considered for promotion. The word may cannot be interpreted as shall because the rule clearly envisages discretion with the Superintendent of Police and is not to be interpreted as mandatory as further reiterated by the use of the words at the discretion of the Superintendent. ( 10 ) THE question has to be examined in the light of the facts of the present case. ( 10 ) THE question has to be examined in the light of the facts of the present case. The appellant was removed from List-A as a result of the punishment which was subsequently reduced to one year s forfeiture of service by order dated October 5, 1962. The Superintendent of Police and the Authorities did not act even after the expiry of one year and seemed to have forgotten all about this case of unfortunate appellant who was involved in a minor incident. There was no consideration for readmitting the appellant in List-A to make him eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable. There is no doubt that the Superintendent of Police had discretion in the matter but such discretion cannot be exercised in an arbitrary and illegal manner. The name of the appellant had to be considered after six months of good conduct and atleast from the date his period of punishment expired. In this background the word may cannot be given a restricted meaning as the result will be disastrous for the employees who are awarded punishment and continuously suffer for their life as a result of non-action of the respondents to review their cases when the law provides such a remedy. It is well settled that no public Authority is vested with an arbitrary right to not even review the cases of their employees at the time when they become eligible, such as, the expiry of the period of punishment in the case of the appellant. Such an interpretation will be violative of the rule of law and the principles of natural justice. The learned Appellate Judge was not oblivious of the nature of the claim of the appellant as in the concluding paragraph as reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment hoped that the Authorities in their wisdom would again consider the case of the appellant. These observations can be interpreted in the nature of directions and the respondents gravely erred in ignoring the same. In view of the above, the Authorities are, therefore, bound to consider the case of the appellant after the expiry of the period of punishment, if not earlier, and in this context, the discretion vested in the Superintendent of Police in terms of Rule 13. 8a (1) is subject to the rights of the employees and cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. 8a (1) is subject to the rights of the employees and cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. ( 11 ) I am informed by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was only involved in this incident for which he has received punishment of forfeiture of his service of one year. There has been no other incident in his career till the date of superannuation on September 30,1994. The period of punishment as awarded by order dated December 14, 1961, obviously would expire on December 14,1962. ( 12 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant shall, therefore, be deemed to be put back in List-A from the date of expiry of the punishment period. The respondents shall, accordingly, consider the appellant for promotion with effect from December 14,1962 by treating him duly qualified under the Rules. The appeal, as a consequence, is allowed with costs which I quantify at Rs. 2,500. 00.