JUDGMENT 1. - All the above listed writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the points involved in all of them are common. For disposal of these writ petitions the facts of the case of Harish Chandra Yaduvanshi v. Union of India and another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1314/1985 shall be taken up. 2. The petitioner was holding the post of Sub Inspector. He was appointed as such on 1.2.1971 and was confirmed on the said post w.e.f. 1.4.1973. While giving promotions to the post of Inspector, Grade II he was not promoted and was superseded. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that other persons having adverse remarks and similarly situated were considered and were promoted. It was in respect of Suraj Singh Chahar it was stated that he was punished by with- holding increment for a period of six months w.e.f. November, 1983. It was stated on behalf of the respondents that in accordance with the circular dated 27.3.1984/3.4.1984 anybody undergoing punishment as on 1.4.1984 under rules 41 of the RPF Rules was considered unfit for promotion. It was stated that increment was stopped effective from 1.10.1983 and on 1.4.84 he was not undergoing punishment. In respect of V.S. Rajput the punishment for with-holding increment for six months from 1.4.1985 is not relevant because ACRs from 1979 to 1983 (calendar year) were taken into consideration and the adverse remarks of 1982 were alleged to be not found in existence. The ACR was shown in respect thereof. The adverse remarks was nullified by the Reviewing Officer. 4. In respect of Ramjilal Sharma, the adverse remarks for punishment of censure was there. It was stated that following remarks was made in the ACR- 'Attitude towards other officers-Lukewarm + Destructive type. Loyalty & Fidelity : Unreliable type Further remarks-Not a reliable or dependable type Not fit for promotion." Though the year of such remarks has not been mentioned in the writ petition but during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the said remarks were made in the ACR of 1983. The record was called for and in the ACR for the year ended in 1983 such a remark was found to exist. This report is dated 25.1.1985 and the meeting of selection committee for the same was held on 14.2.1985 and 16.2.1985. he proceedings were signed on 17.2.1985. The record was called for and in the ACR for the year ended in 1983 such a remark was found to exist. This report is dated 25.1.1985 and the meeting of selection committee for the same was held on 14.2.1985 and 16.2.1985. he proceedings were signed on 17.2.1985. Therefore, this report must have been available to the committee. 5. With regard to Lakhan Singh the record has not been produced as it is stated that the ACRs of 1982 and 1983 are not traceable. From a perusal of the record of Ramjilal, I feel that promotions which have been made are not in accordance with the instructions issued on 27.3.1984/3.4.1984. This shows that the selection committee has not properly applied its mind. There may be other instances also which may not be in the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore it would he appropriate that the entire record alone should he re-examined in the light of the instructions and a fresh order be issued giving promotions to all eligible persons. The earlier order of promotion, which has been given, it is evident that some of the employees must have been further promoted. If it is found on re-exercise that they were eligible, then this order would not affect their further promotions/or present promotions, of those persons. The effect of the order would be only of the consideration of non-eligible candidates who have been promoted and should not have been promoted in accordance with the instructions referred to above. The respondents would undertake this exercise on the basis of the ACRs and without calling the candidates for interview or otherwise, and pass appropriate order within a period of six months. 6. Consequently, these writ petitions stand disposed of in accordance with the above directions.Writ petition disposed of as per above directions. *******