JUDGMENT : S. Chatterji, A.C.J. 1. The present writ petition is at the instance of one Samir Kumar Ray, a judicial officer of the State. He has prayed inter alia to : (i) Issue a Rule Nisi in the nature of a writ of mandamus and/or writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions, calling upon the opposite parties to show-cause as to why Annexure-9 should not be quashed and the petitioner should not be considered for promotion with effect from 30-1-1989, declaring the petitioner's inter se seniority above opp. party Nos. 3 to 42; AND (ii) If the opp. parties fail to show-cause and/or show insufficient end/or false cause, make the said Rule Nisi absolute; AND (iii) Grant any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled; AND (iv) Allow the writ application with costs. XX XX XX 2. It is stated in the writ petition that at the time of presenting the writ petition the petitioner was serving as an officer in the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class-I (Junior). Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Munsif on probation in Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II on 9-1-1981 and he joined the post on 27-1-1981. He was confirmed in the said post on 27-1-1983. On or about 29- - 988, a disciplinary proceeding bearing No. 3 of 1988 was initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension pending such proceeding. it is alleged that during this period adverse remarks were entered in the CCR of the-petitioner which were belatedly communicated to him. The petitioner made representations for expunging the adverse remarks in his CCR and ultimately visited the writ Court by filing OJC No. 5908 of 1991. The said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the Judgment dated July 15, 1992. It transpires from the said Judgment that communication of adverse entry in the CCR of the petitioner for the year 1987 in 1990 after lapse of three years is itself bad in Saw and is liable to be expunged on that score. The said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the Judgment dated July 15, 1992. It transpires from the said Judgment that communication of adverse entry in the CCR of the petitioner for the year 1987 in 1990 after lapse of three years is itself bad in Saw and is liable to be expunged on that score. Considering the submissions of both sides, the Division Bench disposing of the said writ application ultimately recorded : "We have carefully considered the report of the District Judge who had made the entries in the character roll of the petitioner and we have no doubt in our mind to come the conclusion that the charges in the departmental proceeding had not been drawn upon the materials on the basis of which the District Judge had recorded the character roll of the petitioner. Therefore, exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental proceeding of the charges levelled against him cannot be the basis for expunction of the adverse entries. We have, therefore, no hesitation to reject the said submission of Mr. Murty appearing for the petitioner." 3. There is further observation in the said Judgment : "Therefore, Mr. Murty is right in his submission that the adverse entries for the year 1987 lose all significance after the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Orissa Judicial Service, Class-I (Junior) on 18-9-1991 and necessarily therefore the said entries will not stand as a bar in any future promotion but that does not mean that the adverse entries which had been communicated and against which the petitioner made a representation and the representation was duly considered and rejected should be expunged by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of subsequent promotion." 4. The petitioner's main grievance in the present writ petition is that although he has been promoted and the previous adverse entries have lost all significance, yet his seniority has not been restored and his juniors being promoted while the disciplinary proceeding was pending against him have superseded him. There is further challenge as to determination of inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis opp. parties 3 to 42. 5. The present writ petition was presented on 25-3-1994. Notice was issued on 16-5-1994. In spite of notice there is no appearance on behalf of opp. parties 3 to 42. There is further challenge as to determination of inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis opp. parties 3 to 42. 5. The present writ petition was presented on 25-3-1994. Notice was issued on 16-5-1994. In spite of notice there is no appearance on behalf of opp. parties 3 to 42. After obtaining several adjournments, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opp. party No. 2, namely, the Registrar (Administration) of Orissa High Court. 6. It is disclosed inter alia that the main grievance of the petitioner is for quashing Annexure-9, the letter dated 5-2-1994 of the District Judge, Sambalpur informing the petitioner that his representations dated 10-4-1992, 22-8-1992, 21-12-1992, 7-4-1993, 28-5-1993 and 10-6-1993 regarding seniority had been rejected. The petitioner has also sought for direction to consider his case for promotion with effect from 30-1-1989 and to declare his inter se seniority above opp. parties 3 to 42. However, all the allegations of the petitioner have been controverted. It is reiterated that the Judgment in OJC No. 5908 of 1991 speaks for it elf with regard to the averments made by the petitioner and clarifies the position. In the said writ application the petitioner had sought expunction of the adverse entries in his CCR for the year 1987 and also for quashing the order rejecting his representation dated 18-12-1990. Therefore, there cannot be further adjudication on the self-same score. It is also submitted on behalf of opp. party No. 2 that it is true that the High Court on 17-10-1990 on consideration of the enquiry report in DP No. 3 of 1988 had accepted the same and exonerated the petitioner from all the charges and also reinstated him with all benefits treating the period of suspension as duty. The assertion of the petitioner has been disputed that although he was denied promotion on 4-1-1989, yet he remained legally entitled to such promotion especially when the High Court exonerated him from all the charges and reinstated him stipulating that the reinstatement of the petitioner was without prejudice to the claim of promotion. It is also submitted that the petitioner having not approached the Standing Committee and having not exhausted the alternative remedy, the writ application is premature and is to be dismissed accordingly. 7. Mr. Bijon Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court through the pleadings of the parties in greater details. It is also submitted that the petitioner having not approached the Standing Committee and having not exhausted the alternative remedy, the writ application is premature and is to be dismissed accordingly. 7. Mr. Bijon Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court through the pleadings of the parties in greater details. He has very much emphasised on the point that once the High Court has exonerated the petitioner from all the charges in the disciplinary proceeding unequivocally that all benefits available to the petitioner and/or admissible to him are to be made available to him, there is no bar and/or impediment for the petitioner to have his original position in the seniority list restored. In support of his contention Mr. Ray has referred to a decision of this Court reported in (1992) 2 ATT (OHC) 353 (Balakrishna Nayak v. Orissa High Court and Ors.). A Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri B. K. Hansaria in the said decision held inter alia explaining Promotion--Promotion held up--Juniors promoted--Reasons thereof--Departmental Proceedings--Results thereof - Exonerated--Promotion to Class I and subsequent promotion to higher post be effected anterior to the date from which his junior was promoted--Eligible for all consequential benefits. In the said decision it was found that because of the delayed promotion of the petitioner to Class-I post, his promotion to the higher post also got delayed. When his erstwhile juniors were considered for promotion to higher post, his case was not considered. The opp. parties were therefore directed to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner to higher post from the date when his immediate junior's case was considered and to promote him accordingly if he was found suitable. Necessary steps were directed to be taken by the opp. parties within two months of receipt of the Court's order. The ratio of the decision in (1992) 2 ATT (CHC) 353 (supra), according to Mr. Ray, is quite applicable to the present case. Besides, Mr. Ray has also drawn attention of the Court to another decision reported in C.O. Arumugam and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others. parties within two months of receipt of the Court's order. The ratio of the decision in (1992) 2 ATT (CHC) 353 (supra), according to Mr. Ray, is quite applicable to the present case. Besides, Mr. Ray has also drawn attention of the Court to another decision reported in C.O. Arumugam and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others. In the said decision it was held by the Supreme Court that every civil servant has a right to have his case considered for promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The consideration of promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform principle. The promotion of persona against whom charge has been framed in the disciplinary proceedings or charge-sheet has been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. They must, however, be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. If found suitable, they shall then be given the promotion with ratrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted. 8. By referring to the facts of the case and relying upon the aforesaid two decisions, the entire argument of Mr. Ray has been developed and it is submitted that in the instant case proper reliefs may be given to the petitioner since he has been exonerated from all the charges. Further, his earlier CCR entries having lost all significance after promotion being effected, there is no bar and/or impediment to extend promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect and further prayer is made only for restoration of the petitioner's position in the seniority list, so that his Juniors may not supersede him. He has submitted that the petitioner does not claim promotion affecting the interest of opp. parties 3 to 42. He has only asked for the relief of restoration of his position as it should have been had no disciplinary proceeding been initiated and consideration of his case for promotion not deferred. 9. Mr. K. Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in his usual fairness has placed the counter-affidavit sworn by Shri S. K. Pradhan, Special Officer (Admn.) of this Court. He has only asked for the relief of restoration of his position as it should have been had no disciplinary proceeding been initiated and consideration of his case for promotion not deferred. 9. Mr. K. Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, in his usual fairness has placed the counter-affidavit sworn by Shri S. K. Pradhan, Special Officer (Admn.) of this Court. The entire spirit of his argument is that once the earlier writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed, there cannot be any other consideration that the adverse entries in the CCR of the petitioner for the year 1987 have lost all force. The petitioner had not been considered for promotion at the relevant point of the (sic) and it was observed by the earlier Division Bench that the charges against the petitioner were not framed as per the report of the then District Judge concerned. If the adverse entries in the CCR were made and on the basis of such charges were framed, they remained unaffected in view of pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. It is submitted that if on the basis of the adverse entries in the CCR the petitioner had not been given promotion, he cannot have any grievance. Further the petitioner having been once given promotion in 1991, he cannot file the present writ application seeking retrospective benefit of the promotion. Promotion has already Been given to the petitioner on consideration of the materials on record. 10. Patiently we have heard this matter. Diligently we have considered the pleadings of the parties and the principles of law cited at the Bar, We have also considered the service jurisprudence vis-a-vis the claim and counter-claim of the respective sides. Considering all the aspects together, we have to bear in mind to salutary observation of the Supreme Court that a civil servant cannot be denied to have his case considered for promotion according to his turn. This promotion unlike providing employment is a guarantee flowing from Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, Consideration of promotion, as emphasised by the apex Court, can only be postponed on reasonable grounds. In the present scenario, we find that certain charges were levelled against the petitioner and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. Ultimately the disciplinary proceeding was dropped. It appears that the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion during the interregnum period. In the present scenario, we find that certain charges were levelled against the petitioner and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. Ultimately the disciplinary proceeding was dropped. It appears that the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion during the interregnum period. It cannot be said that his case should remain in cold storage for all times to come. If the disciplinary proceeding was dropped, proper promotion was given to him in the year 1991 and a Division Bench of this Court in an earlier writ application had observed that promotion having been given to the petitioner the adverse remarks in his CCR lost all significance, it cannot be gainsaid that the selfsame adverse remarks will still remain on the face of the petitioner while asking for retrospective benefit of the promotion. Law is very clear and the concept is equally clear. The facts and circumstances of the case being put to acid and alcali tests, the petitioner cannot be denied the relief as prayed for. We have very consciously considered all the materials on record. The petitioner has made the minimum prayer that while this Court on administrative side has exonerated him from all the charges observing that all the benefits should be restored to him, that includes promotion which he is otherwise entitled to. If promotion has been given to the petitioner, the same should not be half-hearted. It should be without any reservation. Considering the entire materials on record and in view of the principles of law as also the discussions made above, we are of the view that the writ petition is to be allowed. The communication made by the District Judge, copy whereof is Annexure-9 to the writ application, is to be quashed. The stand taken by the opp. party No. 2 to reject the representation of the petitioner for fixation of his seniority is not appreciated by us, as such a stand is erroneous and cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, the writ application is allowed. Issue appropriate writ commanding opp. parties 1 and 2 to take effective steps to fix the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis opp. parties 3 to 42 treating the promotion of the petitioner with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding against him, which was the cause of his supersession. This exercise must be made within three months from date. parties 3 to 42 treating the promotion of the petitioner with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding against him, which was the cause of his supersession. This exercise must be made within three months from date. We make it clear that this Judgment should not be interpreted that the petitioner has superseded opp. parties 3 to 42, but his original position in the seniority list is restored as he was given promotion in due course. We make no order as to costs. P.K. Mohanty, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed