JUDGMENT Petitioner was allegedly superseded for the post of A.P.P. Grade - I when his two juniors Chhotelal Tiwari and S.P..Mishra were promoted to the post on 25.10.1979. He felt aggrieved and filed T.A. No. 2411/88 complaining about his supersession. This was resisted by State-respondent on the plea that he suffered bad A.C.Rs. dated 21.3.76, 21.3.77 and 31.3.83. He repelled this on the grand that these A.C.Rs. could not be recorded by the Police Authorities from] .4.1974. This prevailed with the Tribunal leading to the disposal of his petition by the following order dated 20.12.1993 : "In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. The respondents are directed to constitute a review D.P.C. to re-consider his claim for promotion ignoring the A.C.Rs. written by the Police Department and if found suitable to promote him from a date earlier than respondent No. 2 and 3 were promoted to the post of District Prosecution Officer so as to restore his seniority over them. The applicant shall also be entitled to consideration for promotion to such other posts on which respondent No. 2 & 3 may have been promoted if the applicant is found suitable for promotion from a date prior to the date respondents No.2 & 3 were promoted. The applicant shall only be entitled to notional fixation of his pay and difference in the salary of the post District Prosecution Officer w.e.f. 17.9. 1989. He is deprived of the arrears of salary of the promoted post of D.P.O. on the earlier date since he filed the application only in 1986 while his claim for that promotion had accrued in the year 1979 itself. No order as to costs." Pursuant thereto State-respondent took about 3 years to convene the D.P.C. and to re-consider his promotion as per the directions of Tribunal. Consequently Order dated 15.5.1996 was passed ordering his promotion from 1982 and not from 25.10.1979 when his juniors were promoted. He accordingly filed M.A No. 13/95 invoking contempt jurisdiction of the Tribunal and also raised an additional plea that the re-convened D.P.C. was again incompetent because it comprised of police officials. Tribunal dismissed his M.A. leaving him free to seek adjudication of this plea by fresh cause of action. He has now filed this petition assailing the Tribunal order and praying for his promotion to the post of A.P.P. Grade - I from 25.10.1979. Tribunal dismissed his M.A. leaving him free to seek adjudication of this plea by fresh cause of action. He has now filed this petition assailing the Tribunal order and praying for his promotion to the post of A.P.P. Grade - I from 25.10.1979. State-respondent was repeatedly asked to produce Minutes of the D.P.C. so that the basis for depriving him from notional promotion from 25.10.1979 could be ascertained. The requisite Minutes have been produced now which show that the D.P.C. again comprised of police officials and had declared petitioner unfit for promotion from 25.10.1979 to 1982 on the basis of assumption and his performance anterior to this period. Assuming that the reconvened D.P.C. was validly constituted, it is not understandable how it could have declared petitioner unfit from 25.10.1979 to 1982 when the A.C.Rs. for the relevant period were to be disregarded and when there was no material available to assess his performance for this period. It, therefore, shows that the reconvened D.P.C. proceeded on a wrong assumption in the matter and had declared him unfit without any valid and tenable basis. Be that as it may, Petitioner was again reverted later to post of A.P.P. Grade-II on 8.5.1997. He is said to have thereafter applied for his voluntary retirement which was accepted by an order dated 4.9.1997 from 20.8.1997. Petitioner complains about all the actions taken against him by official respondents and seeks redressal of the alleged injustice meted out to him. But, it is not possible for this Court to examine the subsequent events like his revertion to the post of A.P.P. Grade - II or for that matter his voluntary retirement because these were not the subject matter of challenge before Tribunal. He shall be at liberty to agitate these issues in an appropriate remedy before the concerned Forum. As regards his challenge to his non-promotion to the post of A.P.P. Grade - I (later re-designated as District Prosecution Officer), we find that there was no basis for this. Even the composition of the D.P.C. comprising of police officials was also liable to be questioned. As regards his challenge to his non-promotion to the post of A.P.P. Grade - I (later re-designated as District Prosecution Officer), we find that there was no basis for this. Even the composition of the D.P.C. comprising of police officials was also liable to be questioned. But considering that this would again protract the litigation between the parties we deem it just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to meet ends of justice direct State-respondent and its concerned functionaries to consider ordering his promotion to the post of A.P.P. Grade - I (District Prosecution Officer) from 25.10.1979 when his juniors were promoted in accordance with the Tribunal directions contained 'in original order dated 20.12.1993. He shall also be considered for any further promotion to the higher post, if such consideration was warranted under rules for the relevant period. We are conscious of the nature of the petition before us, but we cannot shy away from reaching injustice in the facts and circumstances of the case in the face of any technicalities. This order shall not be construed as any precedent for maintaining a Writ Petition against order of the Tribunal dropping contempt proceedings. This shall also leave petitioner free to take appropriate remedy against other actions taken against him by the official-respondents during the pendency of the proceedings before Tribunal or this Court and in that event. any plea oft imitation shall not be allowed to come in his way. At this stage, it was pointed out by AAG, that he had filed I.A. No. 4205/99 for extension of time to settle the pension case of petitioner. The time is accordingly extended for two months.