S. D. PANDIT, J. ( 1 ) CHIMANLAL A. Vyas has filed SCA No. 2007/85 to challenge the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head clerk. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined in the office of the DSP, Surendranagar as Jr. Clerk in the year 1955. He was promoted to the post of Sr. Clerk in the year 1991 and since then he was working in that post. It is his claim that though he is promoted to the post of Sr. Clerk on 6. 1. 71 and though his career is without any blemish, he has been denied promotion to the post of Head Clerk in April 1983. He is at Sr. No. 148 in the seniority list of Sr. Clerk and was eligilbe for promotion in April 1983 but one Shri M. I. Patel who was junior to him and who was at Sr. No. 149 was promoted to the post of Head Clerk with effect from 30. 4. 83 and he has been denied promotion without assigning any reason for doing so. ( 3 ) IT is the contention of respondent that appointment to the post of Head Clerk in the office of the DSP is made by way of promotion on the basis of proved merit and efficiency. It is contended that the petitioner came to the zone of consideration of the said promotion for the first time in the year 1982 and the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) having considered the Confidential Reports of me petitioner for the years 1976-77 to 1980-81, did not find him fit for promotion to the post of Head Clerk. It is contended that in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1978-79, the following remarks were made in his Confidential Reports : (A) responsible for keeping many references pending without sufficient casuse. (B) very slow worker. It is further contended that said remarks were communicated to the petitioner and he had not made any representation against the said remarks. Therefore, in the circumstances he was not selected for the post of prommotion when the DPC met in the month of April 1982. It is further contended that the DPC had subsequently met in October 1984, April 1985 and September 1985. On these occasions also the DPC did not find him suitable for promotion and hence he was not promoted. Therefore, in the circumstances he was not selected for the post of prommotion when the DPC met in the month of April 1982. It is further contended that the DPC had subsequently met in October 1984, April 1985 and September 1985. On these occasions also the DPC did not find him suitable for promotion and hence he was not promoted. In the circumstances, it is contended thatthe petition is liable to dismissed with costs. ( 4 ) IN the affidavit in rejoiner the petitioner has stated that said adverse remarks of 1978-79 were not communicated to him in time. But it is very pertinent to note that he does not say that even after he got comunication of the said remarks he had made any re-presentation against the said remarks. Therefore, it would have to be held that those adverse remarks made against him were not disputed by him. It is not disputed that appointment to the post of Head Clerk is by way of promotion on proved merit and efficiency. Now in view of the adverse remarks made in the year 1978-79 against the present petitioner that he was responsible for getting many references pending without sufficient cause and that he was a slow worker, it is not possible to hold that his non consideration for the said promotional post in April 1982 by the DPC is improper or illegal. ( 5 ) BUT in the affidavit in reply it has been clearly stated that no adverse entry has been made in the confidential report of the petitioner since 1980. The petitioner has clearly averred in his petition that on 8. 10. 82 he was allowed to cross EB and on 1. 7. 83 he was also given selection grade in the post of Sr. Clerk. Now staid averments made by him in his petition are not at all disputed and denied. Now when a person is permitted to cross eb, then it is quite obvious that he has proved his efficiency. Similarly when a person has been given selection grade it will have to be held that he had proved his merits. When these two a things have taken place, the DPC was not justified in denying him promotion to the post of Head Clerk when it had met in October 1984. Similarly when a person has been given selection grade it will have to be held that he had proved his merits. When these two a things have taken place, the DPC was not justified in denying him promotion to the post of Head Clerk when it had met in October 1984. The DPC ought to have taken into consideration that there are no adverse remarks against the petitioner since 1980 and that since the petitioner was allowed to cross EB on 8. 10. 82 and he was also given selection grade on 1. 7. 83 and it ought to have held that he has proved his merit and efficiency and ought to have given him promotion to the post of head Clerk. ( 6 ) NOW from Annexures-F and G given by the petitioner it would be quite clear that as per the decision of the selection committee promotions were given as per the position of the vacancies from 30. 4. 83 till December 1983. Subsequently promotion has taken place as per the decision of DPC held in October 1984. From his own pleadings it is quite clear that between December 1983 to 21. 1. 85 nobody was promoted to the cadre of Head clerk. The persons who were promoted to the cadre of Head Clerk till 1983 were selected by the DPC as per its decision taken in April 1982. I have found that the decision of DPC in not considering him for promotion at the time of selection in April 1982 could not be said to be illegal or improper. Therefore, in the circumstances I hold that petitioner is entitled to get promotion when the next vacancy arose on 21. 1. 85 and he has to be placed above Shri I. M. Karaiaya who was having the gradation list serial no. 151 in the cadre of Sr. Clerk. ( 7 ) I therefore, declare that the action of DPC in denying promotion to the petitioner at the time of selection made by DPC in 1984 is improper and that he is entitled to get promotion as Head Clerk and he is to be placed above Shri I. M. Kariaya and he is entitled to get the said promotional post from 21. 1. 85. Thus the petitioner is to be given promotion from 21. 1. 1. 85. Thus the petitioner is to be given promotion from 21. 1. 85 and he is entitled to get all consequential benefits flowing therefrom such as salary, pay-arrears , pension etc. Thus the petition is allowed as indicated above and the rule is made absolute accordingly. But in the circumstances, I order that the parties to bear their own costs. .