ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.8.2005 issued by respondent No. 1 Jharkhand Public Service commission whereby petitioner has been declared unfit for being promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on the ground mentioned therein. 2. Petitioners case is that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Bihar in the year 1972 and was confirmed on the said post in 1975. In 1985 he was promoted to the post of Police Inspector. In 1995, a departmental proceeding No. 24/95 was initiated against the petitioner and he was punished by the Bihar Government vide order dated 26.2.2002. .Another departmental proceeding No. 38 of 2000 was also initiated against the petitioner by the then State of Bihar for his alleged misconduct and the petitioner was punished by imposing a major punishment in terms of order dated 24.4.2002. In departmental proceeding No. 24/95. wherein petitioner was awarded three Black Marks, the State of Jharkhand acquitted the petitioner from those charges vide its order dated 10.6.2004 issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Special Branch), Jharkhand, copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. So far another departmental proceeding No. 38 of 2000 is concerned, the State of Jharkhand reviewed the punishment order and set-aside the major punishment and substituted it by minor punishment against the petitioner vide order dated 3.6.2004. A copy of the said order issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Special Branch) Jharkhand has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. 3. Petitioners further case is that the Selection Board presided over by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand vide resolution/minutes dated 3.8.2004 took into account the service career of the petitioner and found him fit for his promotion from Police Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police and accordingly recommended the name of the petitioner along with others to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission vide minutes dated 3.8.2004, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. Petitioners case is that inspite of recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Commission declared the petitioner unfit for promotion on the ground of Black Marks and Major Punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Mo. Petitioners case is that inspite of recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Commission declared the petitioner unfit for promotion on the ground of Black Marks and Major Punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Mo. 1, the Commission, it is stated that the service book of the petitioner was brought before the Commission in which there was entry of Black Mark in his service book which is a major punishment and considering this fact decision has been taken not to promote the petitioner. So for contention of the petitioner with regard to review of major punishment is concerned that was not entered in the record placed before the Committee. 5. In separate counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, it is stated that petitioners case was placed before the departmental promotion committee where he was found unfit for promotion due to Black Mark in his service book which is a major punishment. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it is reiterated that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee and the petitioner was found unfit for promotion due to Black Mark in his service book which is a major punishment. 6. Mr. K.K. Jha "Kamal", learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being Illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order is vitiated in law for non-application of mind by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission inasmuch as the fact that punishment of Black Mark was set aside by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and also that the major punishment imposed upon the petitioner was converted into minor punishment in the departmental proceeding referred to herein above. 7. It is well settled principle of law that an employee has no right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. It is equally well settled that the High Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot assume the role of Selection Committee. The Court cannot substitute its opinion and devise its own method of evaluating fitness of a candidate for a particular post Notwithstanding that the Court is not powerless to issue direction in cases where it is found that the officer was not promoted or selected contrary to law. 8. The Court cannot substitute its opinion and devise its own method of evaluating fitness of a candidate for a particular post Notwithstanding that the Court is not powerless to issue direction in cases where it is found that the officer was not promoted or selected contrary to law. 8. In the case of Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. the Supreme Court observed that while the Courts are to be extremely careful in exercising the power of judicial review in dealing with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committees, the executive is also to bear in mind that, in exceptional cases, the assessment of merit made by them is liable to be scrutinized by Courts, within the narrow Wednesbury principles or on the ground of malafides. The judicial power remains but its use is restricted of rare and exceptional situations. Their Lordships made these remarks so that Courts or Tribunals may not-by quoting this case as an easy precedent interfere with assessment of merit in every case. Courts and Tribunals can neither sit as appellate authorities nor substitute their own views to the views of Departmental Promotion Committees. Undue interference by the Courts or Tribunals will result in paralyzing recommendations of Departmental Committees and promotions. In paragraph 58 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court summarized the following principle: (1) Under Article 16 of the Constitution, right to be "considered" for promotion is a fundamental right. It is not the mere "consideration" for promotion that is important but the "consideration" must be "fair" according to established principles governing service jurisprudence. (2) Court will not interfere with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committees unless the aggrieved officer establishes that the non-promotion was bad according to Wednesbury principles or it was malafides. (3) Adverse remarks of an officer for the entire period of service can be taken into consideration while promoting an officer or while passing an order if compulsory retirement. But the weight must be attached to the adverse remarks depends upon certain sound principles of fairness. (4) If the adverse remarks relate to a distant past and relate to remarks such as his not putting his maximum effort or so on, then those remarks cannot be given weight after a long distance of time, particularly if there are no such remarks during the period before his promotion. This is the position even in cases of compulsory retirement. This is the position even in cases of compulsory retirement. (5) If the adverse remarks relate to an period prior to an earlier promotion they must be treated as having lost their sting and as weak material, subject however tio the rider that if they related to dishonesty or lack of integrity they can be considered to have not lost their strength fully so as to be ignored altogether. (6) Uncommunicated adverse remarks could be relied upon even if no opportunity was given to represent against them before an order of compulsory retirement is passed. 9. On the basis of the above principle, I have to consider whether respondents have applied correct legal principle of fairness ad Wednesbury rule and to consider whether relevant facts were not considered and irrelevant facts were considered. 10. It is the specific case of the petitioner in paras 10 to 12 of the writ petition that in departmental proceeding No. 24/95 for an incident dated 11.7.1995 petitioner was punished by the Bihar Government vide order dated 26.2.2002 by awarding three Black Marks. However, the State of Jharkhand acquitted the petitioner from those charges vide order dated 10.6.2004. Similarly, in another Departmental Proceeding No. 38/2000, petitioner was inflicted major punishment by the State of Bihar but the State of Jharkhand reviewed the punishment and vide order dated 3,6.2004 set aside the major punishment and substituted it by minor punishment. 11. Curiously enough, these paragraphs have not been controverted by respondent No. 2 rather it is stated that the statement made therein are matter of record. Similarly in the counter affidavit filed by the Commission, the statements made in the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ application has not been denied or disputed. In the aforesaid circumstances, I fail to understand as to how and on what basis the petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of imposition of Black Mark and major punishment. In the impugned order of the Selection Committee, it is simply mentioned that petitioner was not found suitable for promotion because of Black Mark and major punishment. It is also not clear as to in which proceeding those punishments were inflicted upon the petitioner. If the punishment referred to in the impugned order is relating to departmental proceeding Nos. In the impugned order of the Selection Committee, it is simply mentioned that petitioner was not found suitable for promotion because of Black Mark and major punishment. It is also not clear as to in which proceeding those punishments were inflicted upon the petitioner. If the punishment referred to in the impugned order is relating to departmental proceeding Nos. 24/95 and 38/ 2000 then it is totally non- application of mind for the reasons that punishment of Black Mark has been set aside and major punishment was reduced to minor punishment. On this ground alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. However, this order will not amount to issuing direction upon the respondents for promotion of the petitioner. As discussed above, the Court cannot assume the role of Selection Committee for the purpose of promotion. If the impugned order so far petitioner is concerned suffers from serious illegality and infirmity and also for non- application of mind then certainly direction can be issued to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner as to whether he is fit for promotion or not. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order so far petitioner is concerned is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Selection Committee and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observation made herein above and take fresh decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.