JUDGMENT 1. - While challenging promotion of respondent No. 2 on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, the petitioner has prayed for promotion from the year 1989 itself when respondent No. 2 had been so promoted. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner has been that the determination of vacancy has to be made for each calendar year and vacancies unfilled for the particular year, should be carried forward for the next calendar year. The list prepared by the selection committee or the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), as the case may be, remains in existence only till the end of the calendar year and no promotion from the list, so prepared for the particular year, could be made in the next calendar year. In the present case also, as has come on record, the committee met for consideration and recommendation for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in the year 1989. Though the name of respondent No. 2 had also been recommended by the selection committee, however, promotion order had only been issued on 30.1.1990. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that respondent No. 2 could not have been given promotion from the list which had already expired on 31.12.1989. 2. In reply, the respondent-Board, now the Corporation, has only contended that the petitioner did not come in the zone of consideration for promotion for the year 1989 since he had acquired qualification of DCWA only in the month of June, 1989, whereas the committee had already considered all eligible candidates within the zone of consideration in the month of March, 1989 itself. 3. Promotions on the post in question have been made under the Officers Service Regulations, 1974.. Determination of vacancies is made under Regulation 9 of the above Regulations, which is reproduced here as under: "9. Determination of Vacancies: (1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, the Appointing Authority shall determine preferably at the commencement of each calendar year the number of vacancies anticipated during the year and the number of persons likely to be recruited by each method. (2) Such vacancies as remain unfilled due to 'non-availability of suitable -candidates or otherwise shall be carried forward to the succeeding year and if not filled in shall lapse at the end of succeeding year." 4. (2) Such vacancies as remain unfilled due to 'non-availability of suitable -candidates or otherwise shall be carried forward to the succeeding year and if not filled in shall lapse at the end of succeeding year." 4. As per Schedule appended to the Regulations, criteria for eligibility from different categories has been mentioned. 5. After having carefully gone through the relevant provisions of the Regulations, referred above, the contention, as raised by the counsel for the petitioner, appears to be tenable. No reason or explanation, whatsoever, has been given in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents as to why s promotion order could be issued in January, 1990 only from the select list prepared in 1989. In absence of any plausible explanation, the promotion order issued in favour of respondent No. 2 cannot be held justified. However, the petitioner not coming within the zone of consideration for the year 1989 for want of requisite qualification under a particular quota o and the respondent No. 2 having further been promoted to the post of Accounts Officer, I find no justification for setting aside the promotion, as given to respondent No. 2, after more than 15 years. Issuing directions now in the present writ petition will not only disturb the seniority position on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, but also on the post of s Accounts Officer on which respondent No. 2 had already been promoted as per his seniority in the particular cadre. 6. Under the circumstances, directions, as sought in the present writ petition, cannot be issued. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits.Writ petition dismissed. *******