1) The petitioner at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Commandant in Border Security Force. He was eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. Commandant. When a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, he was not promoted. It is this not promotion, which has led the petitioner to approach this court. The petitioner submits that now he was visited with two orders. One passed by the Inspector General and the other by the Director General, conveying their dis-pleasure. It is submitted that these could not stand in his way in getting higher promotion. Reliance is being placed on Annexure R. 3 which lays down the scope of instructions dealing with the subject as to how and in what manner, an order conveying the Director Generals displeasure is to be dealt with. 2) It is not in dispute that for certain lapses attributed to the petitioner, a staff court an Enquiry was held. However, looking at the overall matter instead of proceeding to a logical end, the petitioner was given a show cause notice asking him to show cause as to why the Director Generals displeasure be not conveyed to him. He was given an opportunity to submit his appeal or representation. Ultimately, an order was passed by which the Director Generals displeasure was conveyed to him. 3) The petitioner as indicated above submits that notwithstanding the conveying of displeasure he was eligible for promotion. The displeasure would stand in his way only if it was for a conduct which may indicate element of dishonesty, pecuniary gain, abuse of power of authority and moral delinquency. It is submitted that as none of these attributes were present in the displeasure which was conveyed to the petitioner, therefore, this could not be taken into consideration for denying him the promotion. 4) The learned counsel for the respondent Union of India submits that the time impact of the instructions, copy whereof is annexure R. 3 is that in case any of the elements referred to above are present, then the consideration is to be deferred in forms of Clause (iv). Otherwise, this can be taken into consideration for determining as to whether ¢ a person is fit or unfit for promotion. 5) It be seen that if a person is found unfit for promotion, it normally results in his postponment of promotion. Otherwise, this can be taken into consideration for determining as to whether ¢ a person is fit or unfit for promotion. 5) It be seen that if a person is found unfit for promotion, it normally results in his postponment of promotion. The only reasonable way to interpret instructions would be that in case, there is not element of dishonesty, pecuniary gain, abuse or power of authority or moral delinquency, then these are not to stand in the way of an employee for being considered for higher assignment. Any other interpretation would totally defeat the purpose of spirit behind the instructions in question. Even otherwise, a perusal of the stand taken by the respondents in the objections does not indicate that this aspect of the matter did not weigh with the respondents when the petitioner was found to be unfit. A perusal of the stand taken in paragraph "C" does indicate that Director Generals displeasure was taken into consideration and this stood in the way of the petitioner in getting higher assignment. The stand taken in this regard is being reproduced below : "Based on gravity of offence DPC may not consider the officer for promotion for a period of one or two years from the date of award of the displeasure. Since the DGs displeasure awarded to the petitioner was falling within the period of consideration of CRs the same was taken into consideration by the DPC held on 22.3.1995. The contention of the petitioner that both the orders (DGs and IGs displeasure) relate and pertain to an area which does not constitute part of the duty of the submission made in para 3 and 5 above. As already stated the petitioner was the custodian of the Copher documents and was also discharging duties as Canteen Officer.." 7) I am accordingly of the view : i) that the purport of instructions is that a men of force is not to be considered for promotion if in the order conveying displeasure, there is element of dishonesty. As already stated the petitioner was the custodian of the Copher documents and was also discharging duties as Canteen Officer.." 7) I am accordingly of the view : i) that the purport of instructions is that a men of force is not to be considered for promotion if in the order conveying displeasure, there is element of dishonesty. pecuniary gain, abuse of power of authority and moral turpitude; ii) that if the aforementioned elements are present then the officer concerned is not to be given higher assignment; iii) that in case the aforementioned elements are not present, then the case of the employee is to be considered independently of the displeasure which might have been conveyed to the concerned employee; iv) that the stand taken by the respondents which has been noticed above, indicates that Director Generals displeasure which was conveyed to the petitioner was taken into consideration for denying promotion to the petitioner which could not have been done. 8) In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post by ignoring the displeasure conveyed to the petitioner. Let this be done within a period of two months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the respondent authorities by the petitioner. 9) Disposed of accordingly.