(1) DELAY condoned. (2) SPECIAL leave granted. (3) THE main grievance projected by learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is against the following directions given by the Tribunal while deciding O.A. No. 1799 of 1994 filed by the respondent herein: "Therefore, we direct the respondents to include the name of the applicant in the panel of Head Constables fit for promotion as Subinspectors for the year 1985 and promote him as Sub-Inspector from the date his junior got promoted with all service and monetary befits within two months from the date of receipt of this order or a copy thereof." (4) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the directions, as given above, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal could only direct consideration of the case of the respondent and could not issue a direction to the respondent to hold him "fit for promotion" and to "promote" him as Sub-Inspector. Tribunal travelled beyond its jurisdiction. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to modify the above direction. (5) THE appellants are directed to consider the case of the respondent for promotion as Sub-Inspector for the year 1985 in accordance with the relevant rules. In the event, the respondent is found fit for promotion and is so promoted after consideration, he may be granted notional promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. With this modification in the impugned order, the appeal is disposed of.