JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.C. Misra, J.—Heard Shri Ajeet Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioners five in number are working for the last more than ten years on the post of ‘Anganwari’ in Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar Karyakram. Though the process for promotion had started far back in the year 1996 but the names of the petitioners have not been forwarded. Being aggrieved, they have filed the present writ petition for the inaction and discriminatory behaviour on the part of the respondent by not promoting them to the promotional post of Mukhya Sevika in terms of U.P. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar (Adhinasth) Seva (Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Niyamawali, 1998 and for not allowing the preferential claim of the petitioners in comparison to the juniors despite repeated demands inspite of being fully eligible though they were called for and interviewed, the petitioners are to suffer irreparably as in the event of non-promotion of the petitioners, the posts and cadres would be dead and the promotional avenues will be shut for them. 3. The result of the interview was arbitrarily and inordinately delayed with mal intention. The juniors to the petitioners were arbitrarily promoted on 18.11.1998 after adopting fresh process and this time no interview, call letters were issued to the petitioners. Though the petitioners had preferential claim and better record to the junior persons so arbitrarily promoted and the right to the quality and equal protection of law guaranteed under the Constitution of India has been infringed by the respondent with no nexus to reason. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed till date by the respondent inspite of time being granted earlier by this Court, since 25.4.2001 and affording last opportunity to the respondent to file counter affidavit. Vide order dated 18.7.2005 of this Court it was made clear that the present writ petition would be heard on the next date even if no counter affidavit was filed. 5. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case this Court has no option but to proceed with the case and accept the averments made in the petition to be true and correct. 6. 5. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case this Court has no option but to proceed with the case and accept the averments made in the petition to be true and correct. 6. It is settled law as laid down in AIR 1966 All 156 ; AIR 1962 All 407 ; AIR 1987 SC 479 ; 1993 Supp (4) SCC 46 and 1999 (82) FLR 709 that if no affidavit in rebuttal is filed and the averments made in the affidavit are not controverted then the said averments must be accepted as true and correct drawing the presumption in favour of the petitioners in terms of Section 114 Illustration (g) and Section 58 of the Evidence Act,1872 and Order VIII, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer due to inaction and delay on the part of the respondent for not considering their promotion in due time. The eligibility of the petitioners was to be considered at the time the vacancy arose and the process of promotion commenced. 7. Under these circumstances the writ petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents are directed to promote all the five petitioners to the post of Mukhya Sevika with effect from the date the process for promotion started in the year 1996 and the juniors to the petitioners were promoted and also pay to the petitioners the entire arrears of salary accrued on the post of Mukhya Sevika with effect from the date of their promotion. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———