Judgment :- 1. The point that has come up for consideration, is as to whether the select list of Lecturers in Instrument Technology, Government Polytechnics, prepared for promotion to the category of Head of Section, is in conformity with law. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are at present working as Lecturers in Instrument Technology. They had been appointed on the same day. By virtue of his higher rank and advice by the Public Service Commission, the fourth respondent had always been considered as senior to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had been taking effort for a promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext. P2 judgment in O.P. No. 34044 of 2000, when he had challenged the steps for filling up of the vacancy by direct recruitment. The Original Petition filed as above had been disposed of by this Court by observing that at the time when the vacancy arose in 1995 there were no qualified hands for promotion available and therefore steps for direct recruitment could be validly proceeded with. However, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to any vacancies that might arise after he became qualified had been left open. 2. Evidently, when the vacancy had arisen thereafter, the petitioner had again filed O.P. No. 15199 of 2003. This was on a complaint that he had been placed below the fourth respondent in the list published by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC) dated 21.4.2003. The Court had not adverted to the merits of the case, but had directed the authorities concerned to examine the objections which had for the year 2002 and consequently earlier appointment. Ext. P7 is also set aside as it had omitted to take notice of the rules. A decision after due discussion was expected from the Government, and on merits. The Writ Petition will stand allowed.