C. K. THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 6726 of 1988 by the learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 15/02/1996. ( 2 ) THE appellant was the original petitioner. He filed the above petition for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the action of superseding the petitioner and not promoting him to the post of Extension Officer / Statistician from the post of Gram Sevak , being illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and for all consequential benefits. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner was that he was serving as Gram Sevak at Kharod in Ankleshwar taluka of Bharuch district. He was initially appointed in April 1962 in the State Service and on formation of the Panchayat Raj, he was allocated to Panchayat Service. With effect from 1/01/1982, he was placed in IRD department at Kharod and continued as such. His grievance was that in October 1982, promotions were given from the post of Gram Sevak to the post of Extension officer. Though he was eligible and qualified and hence ought to have been promoted to the said post, he was superseded. It is his case that he made a representation but it was wrongly turned down. He has stated in the petition that final seniority list of Gram Sevaks was prepared and published on 25/05/1982 and in the said seniority list, he was shown at serial No. 37;whereas one R. G. Bhatt was shown at serial No. 59. In 1987, again promotions were given and Mr Bhatt was promoted at that time,though he was at serial No. 59 and the petitioner was not promoted even though he was at serial No. 37. It was also his case that in past, a minor punishment was imposed on the petitioner of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. In case of Mr. Bhatt, his increment was also stopped and yet, he was promoted. Similar treatment was,therefore, not shown towards him. According to the petitioner, he he was entitled to promotion from 1982 when his junior,respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Extension Officer with all consequential benefits. , ( 4 ) THE petition was admitted and Rule was issued. It appears that nobody appeared on behalf of the authorities nor any counter was filed. According to the petitioner, he he was entitled to promotion from 1982 when his junior,respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Extension Officer with all consequential benefits. , ( 4 ) THE petition was admitted and Rule was issued. It appears that nobody appeared on behalf of the authorities nor any counter was filed. The learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner was superseded twice in 1982 as well as in 1987. So far as promotion of 982 was concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that a representation was made against supersession in 1982 and the petitioner was replied on 11/10/1985 that his representation was turned down. The present petition was filed after considerable delay in July 1988 and in these circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot be said that by rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion in 1982 any illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge. As we do not find any infirmity in that part of the order, the prayer for promotion to the post of Extension Officer / Statistician from 1982 must be rejected. The finding of the learned Single Judge is, therefore, upheld. ( 5 ) AS regards supersession of the petitioner in 1987, it is asserted by the petitioner in the petition that promotion to the post of Extension Officer is to be given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. He has also stated that he was at Serial No. 37. In the final seniority list published in May 1982, Mr. Bhatt was at Serial No. 59. Non-consideration of the case of the petitioner in 1987 was,therefore, not justified. Since Rule was issued and no affidavit in reply was filed, it is not clear whether the case of the petitioner was considered on the basis of relevant criterion of seniority-cum-merit as claimed by the petitioner or that his case was considered and he was found unfit on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. As the petition was filed in 1988 and disposed of in 1996 and nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent-authorities, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if that part of the order dismissing the petition of the petitioner for promotion from 1987 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the petition is allowed in part. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. So far as supersession of the appellant in the year 1982 is concerned, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is confirmed. The supersession of the appellant in the year 1987 is,however, set aside and it is directed that respondent No. 1 will consider the case of the appellant in accordance with law on the basis of materials available with him. It was stated that nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 before the learned Single Judge. This is clear from the judgment of the learned Single judge. Though notice was issued by the Division Bench initially and thereafter the matter was admitted and though respondent No. 1 was served,nobody appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 in this appeal also. The petition was of 1988. L. P. A. is of 1996. Final hearing was also fixed in August 1998 and it was to be placed on Board for final hearing in September 1998. Today ,we are in April 1999. It is stated by Mr. Vyas that the appellant-petitioner has already retired from service in 1996. In these circumstances, it is directed that respondent No. 1 will decide the case of the appellant as expeditiously as possible ,preferably within three months from the receipt of the writ. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. .