JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents, State to consider the petitioner for regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer which according to him was not given on considerations other than legal. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the employment of the State on 10.10.1996. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 24.2.1973 and was confirmed as an Assistant Engineer on 3.10.81. 3. On 7.8.1982, a minor penalty was imposed on the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to the petitioner, however, this order was never communicated to the petitioner and has not been ever implemented. Thereafter on 14.8.1987 i.e. five years after the imposition of the minor penalty, the petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis. The Departmental Promotion Committee made to consider promotion for the year 1987-88 had considered the case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The committee recommended 48 persons for promotion who were accordingly promoted as Executive Engineers on 14.7.88. Having found that he has not been promoted and has not been considered, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as aforesaid. The petition was admitted. In reply, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner was not considered because his record was found bad. It has been stated in para 5 that the petitioner could not be given promotion to the post of Executive Engineer because of the penalty imposed on him under Rule 17 of the Rules. It is then averred that the petitioner was not given promotion because of his bad service record. It is nowhere averred that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its deliberations between 18th and 24th June, 1988. The only right which the petitioner can claim is the right of consideration for a promotional post on the basis of equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment as guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution. There is no averment by the respondents that there such consideration was given to the case of the petitioner. It is worthwhile to note that the only penalty imposed upon the petitioner is dated 7.8.82. There is no averment by the respondents that there such consideration was given to the case of the petitioner. It is worthwhile to note that the only penalty imposed upon the petitioner is dated 7.8.82. A period of five years had elapsed when the matter came up for consideration before the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Government has circulated the norms which are to be taken into consideration while making Departmental Promotion Committee. It is admitted that except for the minor penalty referred to above, there is no communication of any adverse remarks to the petitioner nor there is any penalty imposed on the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules as is contemplated by the Circular dated 30.3.83 (Ex.3) to the petition, the guidelines clearly stated in this circular. A perusal of the same will show that predominance of four things must be considered before promotion is awarded, they are : (i) Confidential report of past seven years. (ii) Pendency of any enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules. (iii) Integrity of character in the past seven years. (iv) No punishment in the last five years. 4. From the statement in the petition it appears that there is no adverse remark in the last seven years of the confidential report. No enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules is pending. There is no remark in the past seven years that the integrity of the petitioner is doubtful and there is no punishment in the past five years from 1987-88 punishing the petitioner under the Rules. In such circumstances the respondents had no justification for denying the consideration for the petitioner for the post of Executive Engineer when 48 other similarly situated officers were considered for promotion. The petition, therefore, must succeed and is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the year 1987-88 by constituting a review DPC, if necessary, it should be done as soon as possible. 5. There will be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******