JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner was holding the post of Manager in the year 1990 and as per Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited Staff (Recruitment & other Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 (for short as "Rules of 1996"), the post of Senior Manager is to be filled up 100% by promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit and merit in the ratio of 1:1. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that vacancies in the cadre of Senior Manager were assessed and a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (for short as "DPC") was convened on 2.4.98 for considering promotion on the post of Senior Manager against the vacancies of the year 1998-99 and recommendations were made for making promotion for four posts of Senior Manager. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, name of one Vishal Singh was kept in seal cover on account of pendency of departmental enquiry against him and name of petitioner was placed at S.No. 1 in the reserved list. Vishal Singh was promoted to the post of Senior Manager vide order dated 25.6.99 and it is alleged that one Sh. S.N. Pandey who was working on the post of Senior Manager in the respondent Mills, retired in the end of February, 1999. The petitioner is claiming promotion against this vacancy on account of retirement of Sh. S.N. Pandey. Another DPC was convened for making promotion on the post of Senior Manager against the vacancies of the year 1999-2000. Said meeting was held on 23/23.12.99 but no promotions were made on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC which met on 23/24.12.99. DPC was again convened on 12.1.01 for filling up two posts of Senior Manager but again no promotions were made. Again on 21.3.2001, the DPC was convened for considering the matter of promotion for four posts but again no promotions were made. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 15.12.99 followed by another representation dated 7.7.2000. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not given promotion due to pendency of the enquiry against him which was initiated by serving charge-sheet dated 22.4.98 and 5.5.98. It is also submitted that petitioner was exonerated in both the proceedings. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not given promotion due to pendency of the enquiry against him which was initiated by serving charge-sheet dated 22.4.98 and 5.5.98. It is also submitted that petitioner was exonerated in both the proceedings. According to petitioner, Enquiry Officer submitted report as back as on 28.9.99 and 30.9.99 after finding out that no charge is proved against the petitioner. But the orders to drop the proceedings were passed on 22.11.01 and 10.4.02. The petitioner again submitted representations to the respondents but the respondents instead of giving promotion to the petitioner informed the petitioner that files relating to promotion on the said post are not available and petitioner was asked to give information about the said files. 3. The net result is that the petitioner could not get the promotion for which according to the petitioner, he was entitled w.e.f. 1.3.99 against the vacancies of year 1998-99 or alternatively w.e.f. 1.4.99 against the vacancies of the year 1999-2000. 4. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition raising preliminary objection that writ petition of the petitioner is pre-matured because the petitioner's case will be considered by the DPC and the meeting of DPC is likely to take place after completion of seniority list. So far initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner and submission of report by Enquiry Officer holding petitioner not guilty and order passed to drop the enquiry against the petitioner, are not in dispute. It is also submitted that it is prerogative of the Employer to fill up the vacancies by way of promotion and even if there is recommendation of the DPC, even then the Employer can take decision not to fill up the vacancies. It is also submitted that if petitioner is found suitable then this aspect will also be examined that from which date the petitioner can be accorded promotion. It is also submitted that respondents are proceeding for convening meeting of DPC to consider the cases of promotion to the said post from eligible candidates. It is also submitted that respondents lodged the FIR on 27.9.2000 when the respondents found that files of earlier DPC are not traceable. 5. It is also submitted that respondents are proceeding for convening meeting of DPC to consider the cases of promotion to the said post from eligible candidates. It is also submitted that respondents lodged the FIR on 27.9.2000 when the respondents found that files of earlier DPC are not traceable. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are acting in such a manner which gives a complete impression of apprehension in the minds of petitioner that respondents may not grant promotion to the petitioner from due date and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for mis-placing the files by respondents. It is also submitted that if petitioner's case was considered in earlier meeting of DPC and it was kept pending only due to pendency of departmental enquiry, then petitioner is certainly entitled for promotion on the basis of recommendation of DPC treating that no enquiry at all is pending against the petitioner. 6. After considering all the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and material placed on record, it is clear that entitlement for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Manager of petitioner is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that petitioner's case was earlier considered for grant of promotion and it is not in dispute that no promotion was granted to the petitioner because the enquiries were pending against the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that any junior person to him was given promotion and it is also true that petitioner cannot be held responsible for loss of files of DPC in which there may be some decision. There may be apprehension in the mind of petitioner that he may be denied promotion from the date when Sh. S.N. Pandey retired but at the same time it is the DPC who is competent to take decision after considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post. Once suitability of the petitioner is found by DPC, then the appropriate order can be issued by the respondents on the basis of recommendation of DPC. This court cannot anticipate, may it be impression in the mind of petitioner, at this stage to hold that DPC will not fairly consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. Once suitability of the petitioner is found by DPC, then the appropriate order can be issued by the respondents on the basis of recommendation of DPC. This court cannot anticipate, may it be impression in the mind of petitioner, at this stage to hold that DPC will not fairly consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. All the facts which petitioner has narrated in the writ petition and the facts which are not in dispute even after the reply of respondents, will remain part of pleadings of litigation between the parties and unless an order is passed for grant or denial of promotion to the petitioner and if promotion is granted to the petitioner from any future date, then these facts may be used by the petitioner to assail the action of respondents but all such exercise will be of no use if petitioner gets the relief from the respondents themselves after recommendation of DPC as desired by petitioner himself.Therefore, in this writ petition only direction can be issued against the respondents to hold the meeting of DPC expeditiously within a period of two months from today. If DPC decides case in favour of the petitioner, then necessary order will be passed by the respondents. The writ petition is therefore, partly allowed as observed above.Petition partly allowed. *******