ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the Commission. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a mandamus commanding the respondent-State to consider his case for promotion on a Class-3 post on account of the fact that he had cleared the departmental examination and had been recommended by the Commission for such promotion by order No. 253 dated 17.6.1998. 3. In pursuance of an advertisement in the newspaper inviting applications from Class-4 employees, which the petitioner was, for appointment by way of promotion on Class-3 posts based on a limited competitive examination the petitioner also applied. His name was then recommended as noticed above on being successful. A controversy then seems to have been created by the District Magistrate with regard to the issue of roster clearance. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that this was unjustified in view of the fact that the posts being promotional, the roster was already available and which was accordingly reiterated by the office of the Commissioner notwithstanding which the recommendation has not been acted upon till date. 4. Despite the writ application having been filed on 9.5.2000, no counter affidavit has been filed. This Court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter for the purpose any more. The writ application is disposed with direction to the State-respondents to act in accordance with law on the recommendation dated 17.6.1998 of the Commission with regard to the petitioner in light of the instructions already issued by the office of the Commissioner. Let such appropriate action be taken within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. In absence of any valid justification urged by the respondents to deny the benefits of the limited competitive examination and the recommendation of the Commission, this Court holds that the petitioner shall be entitled to his seniority on the Class-3 post with effect from 17.6.1998. The petitioner appears to have been wronged, but since he has not worked on the promotional post, this Court finds it difficult to direct the State-respondent to pay him his salary on a post on which he has not actually worked. Justice requires that the wrong done to him be remedied by those who have wronged him in the year 1998. Justice requires that the wrong done to him be remedied by those who have wronged him in the year 1998. This Court, therefore, directs the State-respondents to pay to the petitioner 50% of his back wages after deducting the same from the salary of those who have wronged him, i.e. the District Magistrate concerned at the relevant date. 6. Let the same be done within a period of two months and affidavit of compliance be filed by the State Government within a period of three months. 7. List for perusal after three months.