PALOK BASU, J. The petitioner Nathuni Sharma prays through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India that: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the records and quashing the impugned orders dated 1-3-1995, 10-1-1995 and 29-12-1994 (Annexures-IV and V), order dated 14th September, 1995 (An-nexure-IX) and the censure entry in service record of the petitioner as per order dated 29-9-95 (Annexure-X) respectively passed by the respondents. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dents to treat the petitioner as having been duly promoted/appointed on the next higher post of Assistant Engineer from the date when the im mediate Junior to the petitioner was promoted alongwith all consequential benefits including further promotions to all next higher post and the respondent may be also commended to refund forthwith the entire due ar rears/amounts with interest. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award costs to this petition to the petitioner. 2. When the writ petition was filed before a learned Single Judge Standing Counsel was granted two months to file counter affidavit but by the interim order dated 12-1-96 it was permitted that the petitioners representation Annexure-6 shall be decided within one month. The said representation has been decided by the respondents order dated 30-3-1996 a copy of which order has been filed as An- nexure-9 through the amendment applica tion which makes an additional prayer that the order dated 30-3-96 (Annexure-9) may also be quashed. No counter-affidavit has been filed in the writ petition and during the course of hearing opportunity was granted repeatedly to the State but neither any reply to the writ petition nor to the amendment application is forthcoming. As prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition was consequently heard on merits and the judgment was reserreserved. 3. In short the controversy raised through this writ petition is that as if the petitioner is entitled to the promotion post but the respondents have not con sidered the petitioner but have promoted juniors to the petitioner. As prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition was consequently heard on merits and the judgment was reserreserved. 3. In short the controversy raised through this writ petition is that as if the petitioner is entitled to the promotion post but the respondents have not con sidered the petitioner but have promoted juniors to the petitioner. The petitioners claim is, which is not disputed, that he was appointed as Junior Engineer in Rural En gineering Services by the State of U. P. on 19-4-1973, was confirmed by an order dated 6-3- 1982 on the said post and on 4-9-1991 selection grade has been awarded to him with effect from 1-1- 1984. Yet, the petitioner was maintained at the level of Junior Engineers but some, who were junior to him in the grade of Junior En gineer, were promoted as Assistant En gineers. It has been further averred that by an order dated 8-7-1993 the petitioner has been awarded gazetted post and, there fore, the petitioner is entitled to the promotion post with effect from the date on which the juniors to him have been promoted. 4. It may be pointed out that this is the third occasion that the petitioner has to come up to this Court. The first one was when the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18096/94, which was disposed of on 21-4- 1994 by a Division Bench of this Court directing that the petitioners repre sentation dated 20-8-1993, be decided within three months. Second time the petitioner came through Contempt Peti tion No. 1788/94 because it was alleged that the respondents were not deciding the petitioners representation. Notice was is sued on the said contempt application but since the respondents decided the repre sentation in the meantime by order dated 1-3-1995; the said contempt petition was dismissed on 21-4-1994. Thereafter the petitioner moved a detailed repre sentation which has now been decided by the order dated 30-3-1996 made a part of the record through the amendment ap plication. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the amendment application is al lowed and the relief and the two para graphs shall be deemed to have been in corporated in the original memorandum of the writ petition. 6. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the amendment application is al lowed and the relief and the two para graphs shall be deemed to have been in corporated in the original memorandum of the writ petition. 6. It was vehemently argued by Shri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the representation by the impugned order dated 30-3-1996 is wholly arbitrary and therefore, it is a fit case where this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would issue necessary directions. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court U. P. S. E. B. v. Kharak Singh, 1990 Supreme Court Case (L&s) 597 and D. D. A. v. H. C. Khurana, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1488. Reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in J. P. Srivastava v. State of U. P. , 1996 (2) E. S. C. 568. 7. A close scrutiny of the order dated 30-3-1996 indicates that: (1) In 1975-76 some dereliction in duty was noted when the petitioner was posted in Barabanki and censure entry was given on 21-6-1975. He was held responsible for causing loss to the Government and therefore a sum of Rs. 2335 was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. This order persists. While posted in Banda some dereliction in duty was noticed but subsequently it was found that the petitioner was not responsible for any loss not default and therefore he was reinstated with full wages. It is said that these two matters were considered at the time the Departmental Promotion Commit tee (D. P. C.) to evaluate the chances of the petitioner for the promotion post. (2) In the year 1982-83 adverse entries was awarded against which the petitioner made a representation while deciding which the said entry of 1982-83 was criticised. (3) In 1994 guidelines were indicated for promotion. By an order dated 6-10-1990 the Executive Engineer, Varanasi had stopped the petitioners efficiency bar (E. B. ). (2) In the year 1982-83 adverse entries was awarded against which the petitioner made a representation while deciding which the said entry of 1982-83 was criticised. (3) In 1994 guidelines were indicated for promotion. By an order dated 6-10-1990 the Executive Engineer, Varanasi had stopped the petitioners efficiency bar (E. B. ). However, it is admitted in this paragraph that selection grade was awarded to the petitioner w. e. f. 1-1-1984 and what is pleaded in this paragraph is that for the purposes of crossing E. B. or awarding selec tion grade normally entries are taken into ac count but that principle will not apply with regard to determining the seniority of the petitioner or his claim to the promotion post. (4) Since the petitioner was awarded an adverse entry in 1975-76 and the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2, 335 was directed to be recovered from the petitioner that order stands. Over and above it was vide order dated 22-11-1990, that the petitioner was found to have committed some default regarding the construction of a primary school in Tuziamau, Jaunpur for which a sum of Rs. 873/- was directed to be realised from the petitioner. (5) All the aforesaid facts were considered by the D. P. C. in its meeting dated 28-2-1995 and on the basis of the guidelines then existing, it was found that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion. (6) The petitioners case may be con sidered for promotion alongwith other can didates when general promotions are going to be taken up. The petitioners name stands at Serial No. 3 in order of seniority. The petitioners case shall be considered at the ap propriate time. 8. This is how the aforesaid repre sentation of the petitioner stands finally disposed of by the impugned order dated 30-3-1996. 9. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that even though there may have been one censure entry and one order directing some deduction, the subsequent work and conduct of the petitioner earned for him not only crossing of efficiency bar but also selection grade in as such as gazetted post was made available to the petitioner in due course of time. 10. 10. In view of the aforesaid discus sion, it is right time that the petitioners case for promotion is adjudicated inde pendently bby the D. P. C. on the basis of the work and conduct, which he has exhibited because enough water has flown since the aforesaid adverse censure entry was awarded to the petitioner. 11. Before concluding the matter and recording the operative portion it has to be mentioned here that the charm of a Government service lies in getting timely promotions. While it is true that the employee does not have any fundamental right to promotion but he does have a statutory right to be considered for the promotion. It is of paramount impor tance, therefore, that the respondents who are employers consider the matter of petitioners promotion within a reasonable period of time. Unnecessary delay in holding the meeting of the D. P. C. frustrates the Government servants. There may not be any legal much less a moral basis for respondents not to hold meeting of the D. P. C. for years together. It has rightly been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that since there is no fixed time for meeting of the D. P. C the persons who may be entitled to the promotion lose the promotional benefits for an indefinite period. Article 16 of the Constitution of India provides equal opportunity in the matter of employment under the Govern ment. This provision should and must en sure timely holding of the meeting of the D. P. C. so that Government employees such as the petitioner do not have to wait indefinitely for the promotional post which, in the event of the D. P. C. deciding favourably, they shall be entitled to. The legitimate expectation of a Government employee to seek promotion in time is as much a part of his statutory rights as the fundamental right to have equal oppor tunity in the employment itself. A time bound direction, therefore, has to be is sued to the respondents to hold the meet ing of the D. P. C. for considering whether the petitioner should get promotion or not. 12. The writ petition consequently succeeds in part. A time bound direction, therefore, has to be is sued to the respondents to hold the meet ing of the D. P. C. for considering whether the petitioner should get promotion or not. 12. The writ petition consequently succeeds in part. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in ac cordance with the rules keeping in view the observations made above in the next meeting of the D. P. C. which shall be held soon preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. Parties will bear theii costs. Copy of this judgment shall be furnished to the learned Counsel for the parties on pay ment of usual charges within a week. Petition partly allowed. .