In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to promote him to the post of Executive Engineer (Drilling) with effect from 1.1.85 instead of 1.1.90 and to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the next post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (D) by treating his date of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Drilling) as 1.1.1985. 2. The relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner joined the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (for short 'the ONGC') as a Technical Grade II employee on 15.12.65. Thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Driller in the ONGC and he joined as such Assistant Driller in the Mehsana Project of the ONGC in Gujrat on 9.12.75. In July, 1979 he was transferred to Calcutta and continued to work as Assistant Driller at Calcutta with effect from 13.7.79. He was promoted to the post of Driller by order dated 9.1 1.81 and he joined in the promotional post of Driller in the West Bengal Project, Calcutta on 15.6.82. While he was working in West Bengal Project, Calcutta a departmental proceeding was initiated against him by office memorandum dated 25.4.84 and the petitioner challenged the said departmental proceeding in a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. In the said departmental proceeding initially a penalty of censure was imposed on the petitioner but thereafter by office memorandum dated 7.4.87 the penalty of censure converted With a warning and finally the departmental proceeding was dropped on 11.10.88. In the meantime, the petitioner was considered for appointment to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer) in interviews held on 6.9.86 and 10.12.87, but the petitioner was not appointed and instead some Drillers who were juniors to the petitioner in service were appointed as Senior Driller. The petitioner made several representations to the Director (Personnel) and the Chairman of ONGC, but no orders were passed on the said representations. Finally on 24.8.90 the petitioner appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the DPC) and on the recommendation of the DPC the petitioner was promoted to the post of Driller by order dated 20.9.90. The petitioner then made representations to the Chairman of the ONGC stating all relevant facts and making a prayer that his promotion to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer) should be treated as effective from 1.1.85 and not from 1.1.90. The petitioner then made representations to the Chairman of the ONGC stating all relevant facts and making a prayer that his promotion to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer) should be treated as effective from 1.1.85 and not from 1.1.90. Since no orders were passed on the said representations the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for appropriate reliefs. 3. At the hearing, Mr. BK Goswami assisted by Mr. RL Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & others vs. KV Jankiraman & others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 that pending completion of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner initiated by the office memorandum dated 25.4.84, the Sealed Cover Procedure for promotion should have been adopted by the authorities and since the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was finally dropped on 11.10.88, the recommend­ation of the DPC in the sealed cover relating to promotion of the petitioner should have been given effect to by the authorities and if the DPC had recommended the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer), he should have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1.1.85 when his juniors were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. 4. In reply, Mr. DK Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents, relied on the averments made in the affidavit-in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to the effect that the interview held in the year 1986 and 1987 were for the purpose of direct appointment to the post of Executive Engineer from amongst the departmental candidates and not for the purpose of promotion. He further submitted that in the said interviews held in the years 1986 and 1987 the petitioner did not get the minimum qualifying marks for selection for appointment to the post of Executive Engineer, whereas various other officers who are junior to the petitioner secured the minimum qualifying marks and were accordingly selected and appointed to the post of Executive Engineer. Mr. Talukdar further submitted on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulation Rules, 1980 that to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of merit, a Driller should have atleast 4 years experience as a Driller. Mr. Talukdar further submitted on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulation Rules, 1980 that to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of merit, a Driller should have atleast 4 years experience as a Driller. The petitioner having joined as Driller on 15.6.82, completed such 4 years of experience in the year 1986 and was therefore considered for such promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of his merit in 1988 under the career growth scheme but he secured only 77.5 marks out of 105 marks whereas the qualifying marks for such promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of merit was fixed as 81.5 marks and was therefore not promoted in the year 1988. Mr. Talukdar further submitted that for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of seniority subject to fitness however the petitioner was required to have 6 years experience as a Driller and the petitioner completed the said period of 6 years in the year 1988 and was accordingly called for interview before the DPC in the year 1989 but the petitioner did not appear before DPC and as a result he could not be given promotion during the year 1989. In the year 1990 the petitioner again appeared before the DPC and on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1.1.90. Mr. Talukdar contended that these facts would show that the petitioner could not be given promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1.1.85. 5. On a reading of the affidavit-in-opposition and the additional affidavit-in-opposition as well as Annexures thereto filed by the respondent Nos 1 to 4 it appears that a selection was held in the year 1986 for selecting suitable officers of the ONGC for appointment to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer) and the Selection Committee fixed the minimum qualifying marks at 60% for educational/professional qualification and experience and 60% for recorded performance as per ACR grading and the performance at interview. In the said selection, however, the petitioner secured only 38% for educational/professional qualification and experience and only 24% for recorded performance as per .ACR grading and performance at the interview. In the said selection, however, the petitioner secured only 38% for educational/professional qualification and experience and only 24% for recorded performance as per .ACR grading and performance at the interview. The petitioner, therefore, did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks and was accordingly not selected for appointment to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer). Thereafter, again in the year 1987 a similar selection for selecting suitable officers of the ONGC for appointment to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer) took place and the Selection Committee fixed the minimum qualifying marks of 50% for educational/professional qualification and experience and 53% for recorded performance as per ACR gradings and performance at the interview. In the said selection again the petitioner did not get the minimum qualifying marks and instead got only 38% for educational/professional qualification and experience and only 23% for recorded performance as per ACR gradings and performance at the interview. In the years 1986 and 1987, therefore, officers of the ONGC were considered for direct appointment by the Selection Committee and were appointed on the basis of their merit. The aforesaid appointments to the post of Executive Engineer (Drilling) were by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion and for such appointment by way of direct recruitment, the sealed cover procedure for promotion pending a departmental proceeding against a delinquent employee was not at all applicable. 6. It further appears from the affidavit-in-opposition and the additional affidavit-in-opposition as well as Annexures thereto filed by the respondent Nos 1 to 4 that on completion of 4 years service as a Driller, the petitioner was considered for promotion on the basis of his merit in the year 1988 under the scheme for career growth. But the petitioner did not secure the required marks of 81.5 assessed on the basis of qualification, experience and average of 4 years ACR gradings of the officers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on merit and instead secured only 77.5 marks. As a result, he could not be promoted on the basis of his merit in the year, 1988. As a result, he could not be promoted on the basis of his merit in the year, 1988. It further appears from the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos 1 to 4 that on completion of the 6 years service as a Driller he became eligible to be considered eligible for promotion on e the basis of seniority subject to fitness at the end of the year 1988 and he was accordingly called for interview before the DPC, but he did not appear before the DPC and thus he could not be given promotion in the year 1989. In the year, 1990, however the petitioner was considered for promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness and he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Drilling) with effect from 1.1.90. The aforesaid facts, therefore, make it clear that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner did not stand in the way of his consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (D) in the years 1988,1989 and 1990 and as soon as the petitioner was found suitable for promotion on the basis of his seniority subject to fitness by the DPC, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (D) with effect from 1.1.90. The contentions of Mr. Goswami and Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner 8 was not considered for promotion due to the departmental proceeding against him and the sealed cover procedure for promotion should have been followed by the authorities pending finalisation of the departmental proceeding is misconceived. 7. It was next contended by Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner that Regulation 7 (9) of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 of the ONGC provided that an employee shall be informed of his non-selection in the cases of promotion. Mr. Yadav explained that the purpose of the said provision was to enable the employee to file an appeal under Regulation 8 of the said Regulations to the appellate authority Despite the said provision in Regulation 7 (9) of the aforesaid Regulations, the petitioner was not informed of his non-selection for promotion. Mr. Yadav referred to the averments made in the reply of the petitioner to show that the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (D) with effect from LI.85 has not been correctly considered by the authorities. Mr. Yadav referred to the averments made in the reply of the petitioner to show that the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (D) with effect from LI.85 has not been correctly considered by the authorities. He also referred to the working paper of the Group General Manager (D) prepared on 7.6.90 on anomalies in promotion to the post of Driller (D) in which on the said Group General Manager (D) has suggested that the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Driller with effect from January, 1980, to the post of Executive Engineer (D) with effect from 1.1.85 and to the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (D) with effect from 1.1.90. According to Mr. Yadav, the said working paper of GGM (D) would conclusively show that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1.1.85 and to the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer with effect from 1.1.90. 8. Mr. DK Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contended that the said working paper of the GGM (D) prepared on 7.6.90 has not been accepted by the competent authority who passes orders with regard to appointments and promotions. He further stated that the petitioner very well knew about his non-selection to the post of Executive Engineer as soon as the results of the selection were declared by the authorities and therefore the petitioner cannot take a stand that he was not informed for his non selection to the post of Executive Engineer. 9. The Recruitment and Promotion Regulations 1980 of the ONGC have been framed under section 32 of the ONGC Act, 1959 and therefore the said regulations have statutory force. Regulation 6 of the said Regulations provided for filling up vacancies by direct recruitment. There is no provision in Regulation 6 for informing a candidate about his non selection by the Selection Committee for direct appointment to a post. Thus, when the petitioner was not selected by the Selection Committee for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer) in the years 1986 and 1987, there was no statutory obligation on the authorities to inform the petitioner about his non selection for such direct recruitment. Thus, when the petitioner was not selected by the Selection Committee for appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer) in the years 1986 and 1987, there was no statutory obligation on the authorities to inform the petitioner about his non selection for such direct recruitment. The petitioner however could not know as to why he was not selected for such direct recruitment until the affidavit-in-opposition and additional affidavit in opposition were filed by the respondent Nos 1 to 4 and thus the petitioner has not been able to effectively represent his case before the higher authorities against his non-selection for such direct recruitment to the post of Senior Driller (Executive Engineer). Regulation 7 of the aforesaid Regulations provides for filling up vacancies by promotion and clause (9) of the said Regulation 7 clearly provides that “an employee shall be informed of his non-selection in the cases of promotion.” Regulation 8 of the aforesaid Regulations further provides that an employee aggrieved by the order of promotion on the ground that he has not been selected may appeal to the appellate authority. An employee, therefore, had a statutory right of being informed of his non-selection in the cases of promotion and also a statutory right of filing an appeal against the order of promotion on the ground that he has not been selected. Therefore, when the petitioner was not selected for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (D) in the years 1988 and 1989 the concerned authority should have informed the petitioner of his non-selection for such promotion. It appears that the petitioner was not informed about his non-selection for promotion and it is only after the petitioner filed the present writ petition and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 10th November, 1997 that the petitioner for the first time came to know that he had not been promoted in the years 1988 and 1989 due to his non-selection and as a result the petitioner has not been able to file his statutory appeal before the appellate authority against his non-promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (D). 10. 10. For the reasons stated above, I dispose of this writ petition with direction that within one month from today the petitioner will file a representation against his non-selection by the Selection Committee in the year, 1986 and 1987 and an appeal against his non-selection for promotion in the years 1988 and 1989 before the appellate authority along with the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority will consider the same and pass orders thereon within 2 months from the date of receipt of the said representation and the appeal and certified copy of this order from the petitioner. While considering the representation and the appeal of the petitioner, the appellate authority will also consider the recommendation of the GGM (D) in his working paper dated 7.6.90, a copy of which would be furnished by the petitioner to the appellate authority along with his representation and appeal. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.