JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---The petitioner is a degree holder in Electrical Engineering and he came to be appointed as Sub-Engineer on work charge in November 1969. He was subsequently appointed as Junior Engineer on 5th October 1971 and continued to work under respondent No. 2 till 1977. On 12th January 1977, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer. His case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer was considered by the competent Selection Committee in its meeting held on 22nd January, 1982 alongwith other employees and the Committee concluded that the petitioner was not fit to be promoted alongwith others. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation on 12th July, 1982 and the same was replied by the Establishment Officer of the respondent Board on 10th September, 1982 informing him that his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (E M) was considered alongwith other similarly placed employees and the Committee did not find the petitioner fit for promotion on account of his unsatisfactory report. The petitioner subsequently went on submitting representation on 29th November, 1982 and on 29-12-1992. The Subordinate Engineers' Association also submitted a representation on 8-12-1982 to the Chairman of the respondent Board. It is evident from the record that the petitioner's case was again considered by the competent Selection Committee in its meeting on 18th June, 1983 for promotion to the Deputy Executive Engineer alongwith others and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 came to be promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer by Order dated 21st June 1983. As the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion by the Board alongwith respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who are admittedly junior to the petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the promotion order dated 21-6-1983 and also prayed for directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to promote him. It is also evident from the additional reply filed by the Board that the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer by Order dated 18-5-1985 and he resumed the charge of the said post on 12-6-1985. The only short question remains to be examined by this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to be given deemed date of promotion alongwith respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who were promoted by Order dated 21st June 1983 (Exhibit K). The only short question remains to be examined by this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to be given deemed date of promotion alongwith respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who were promoted by Order dated 21st June 1983 (Exhibit K). 2.The promotion to the higher posts including the post of Deputy Executive Engineer are covered under Regulation 22 of the M.S.E.B. Classification and Recruitment Regulations and Clause A of the said rule reads thus : (a) No employee shall be promoted to a higher post unless his record shows that he possesses the necessary positive qualifications for the higher post such as personality, qualifications, initiative, strength of character and readiness to assume individual responsibility. (b) No employee who possesses the positive qualifications referred to in (a) above shall be passed over by a person junior to him unless the latter has, in addition, exceptional ability or qualifications. (c) In assessing the merits of employees on comparative basis for the purpose of Nos. (a) and (b) above, the ability, energy, initiative, integrity and sense of responsibility, etc. of the employees concerned should be taken into consideration over a series of years wherever possible and judgment should formed after carefully considering reports of at least 3 different superior officers wherever possible. 3.The initial affidavit filed in reply by the Board opposes the petition only on the ground that the competent Selection Committee in its meeting held on 22-1-1982 as well as on 18-6-1983 found the petitioner unfit for promotion on the basis of his service record and that is the only reason for denying him promotion. The affidavit does not explain as to how respondent Nos. 4 to 6 possessed exceptional ability or qualifications when the petitioner's claim was passed over. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the Board has made available photostat copies of the competent Selection Committee's recommendations in respect of its meeting held on 22-1-1982 and 18-6-1983. The relevant extract from the said recommendations read as under: 1.Meeting held on 22-1-1982 The Committee did not find the following A.Es. fit for promotion due to unsatisfactory record. S/Shri. 1.A. G. Bhore 2.D. B. Jadhav 3.R. K. Bora 1.Meeting held on 18-6-1983 The Committee did not find following A.Es. fit for promotion due to unsatisfactory record. The relevant extract from the said recommendations read as under: 1.Meeting held on 22-1-1982 The Committee did not find the following A.Es. fit for promotion due to unsatisfactory record. S/Shri. 1.A. G. Bhore 2.D. B. Jadhav 3.R. K. Bora 1.Meeting held on 18-6-1983 The Committee did not find following A.Es. fit for promotion due to unsatisfactory record. Degree-holders 1.S. V. Parkhi 2.S. S. Jongid 3.V. J. Choudhary 4.C. V. Chandle 5.S. V. Lature 6.R. K. Bora The petitioner's case was again reviewed by the competent Selection Committee in its meeting held on 26th August, 1983 and it was recommended that he should be given the benefit of pay scale to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer w.e.f. 1st April, 1983 and the Committee did not find him fit to be granted the said benefit w.e.f. 12th January, 1983- the due date. The learned Counsel for the Board has also made available before us the confidential reports of the petitioner for the year 1977-78 to 1982-83. It is also an admitted fact that while considering the case for promotion the confidential reports of preceding 3 years are taken into consideration and it is submitted before us on behalf of the Board that the competent Selection Committee on examining confidential reports of the petitioner had rightly concluded that the petitioner was not a fit case for being promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer alongwith others as per Order dated 21st June 1983. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to reproduce some of the relevant columns in the confidential reports which have been confirmed by superior officers of the petitioner in the respective years. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YearGeneral AverageRecommendation Reputation for comments grading for promotion integrity next and higher rank ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1978-79The employee AverageIn the normal Good takes fair course interest in the job assigned. 1979-80Not applicable AverageIn the normal Reliable course 1980-81Sincere worker GoodIn the normal Good and course reliable1981-82 Not applicable Good In the normal Good course 1982-83 Sincere and Good In the normal Good hard workercourse ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.We must also note that in the average grading column, there are options of 5 different remarks namely; outstanding, very good, good, average and poor and in the column for recommendation for promotion to the next higher ranks, there are four options for assessment and they are accelerated, in the normal course, late and not fit. 5.Even if we presume that the competent Selection Committee in its meeting held on 22nd January 1982 examined the service record of the petitioner for the preceding 3 years namely; 1978-79 to 1980-81 (assessment year is from 1st April to 31st March of the next year) and recorded its recommendation not to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, we do not find any justification in the Selection Committee's recommendation not to promote the petitioner in its meeting held on 18th June 1983. The above chart would indicate that the confidential reports as written by the superiors of the petitioner for the year 1980-81 to 1982-83 cannot be held to be adverse, in any manner. On the face of this record, the observations of the competent Selection Committee in its meeting held on 18th June 1983 that it did not find the petitioner fit for promotion due to unsatisfactory record are most unjustifiable and they cannot be supported on the face of these confidential reports. In all these years, the petitioner has been rated as a sincere worker. His average grading was good. He was recommended for promotion in the normal course and he was held to be officer of good moral reputation and integrity. In none of these years, the petitioner was rated either average or poor or his superiors while writing the confidential reports observed that he was not fit for promotion or he was an officer of doubtful integrity or reputation. 6.Rule 22, as reproduced hereinabove, puts a caveat against the Board not to supersede an officer who possesses the positive qualifications regarding personality, initiative, strength of character and readiness to assume individual responsibility and such officers should not be superseded by the juniors unless such junior officers have, in addition, exceptional ability or qualifications. We are afraid the Board has failed to demonstrate as to how the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 satisfied the requirements as stipulated in Regulation No. 2(A) (b). If the competent Selection Committee has made certain recommendations and if such recommendations are not supported by the confidential records, as maintained by the Board, this Court would be justified in interfering with such recommendations. 4 to 6 satisfied the requirements as stipulated in Regulation No. 2(A) (b). If the competent Selection Committee has made certain recommendations and if such recommendations are not supported by the confidential records, as maintained by the Board, this Court would be justified in interfering with such recommendations. There is no doubt that promotion to the higher post is an important issue for an employee's career and when an employee of the Government or a statutory Corporation/Board is being denied promotion for no justifiable reasons, this Court will be justified to step in for taking corrective action so as to protect employee's interests. We are of the considered view that the competent Selection Committee has failed to apply its mind to the confidential reports as available before it for the preceding three years namely 1980-81 to 1982-83 when it met on 18-6-1983 and these confidential reports, if considered properly, make out a clear case that the petitioner was wrongly denied promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer alongwith respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 7.We, therefore, allow the petition and direct the respondent No. 1 to 3 re-constitute the competent Selection Committee within a period of one month from today to review its recommendations in respect of the petitioner and to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer alongwith respondents Nos. 4 to 6. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall place before the competent Selection Committee the Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the year 1980-81 to 1982-83 and the competent Selection Committee shall record its recommendation in keeping with the regulations applicable for promotion in respect of the petitioner. This action be completed within a period of six months. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed. -----