Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming therein writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to issue posting Orders ofthe petitioner from the date when his junior was appointed. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he and his immediate junior Sh. Lakhi Ram was, vide order dated 20.09.1982 (Annexure P-l), promoted on ad hoc basis as Sub-Divisional Engineer. In the quota assigned to the petitioner category i.e. Junior Engineer (Diploma Holders), the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 1 and that of Sh. Lakhi Ram at Sr. No. 2 in the said order. It is an admitted position that this order was not given effect to, therefore, no posting Orders were issued either to the petitioner or to Mr. Lakhi Ram, who was similarly promoted by this order. The reason for not giving effect to this order was that the regularly seiected Sub-Divisional Engineers.came to be posted against the posts, which actually betong to the direct quota and, therefore, no posting Orders could be given effect to. It is further the contention of the petitioner that Sh. Lakhi Ram, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner and Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, who is further junior to Sh. Lakhi Ram, were promoted earlier to the petitioner whereas case of the petitioner has been ignored. It is contended that he should be promoted from the date his juniors were promoted and should be given all consequential benefits. 3. The respondents in their written Statement have admitted the fact regarding the petitioner being senior to Sh. Lakhi Ram and Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta. The only contention, which has been raised by the respondents in their written Statement, is that the petitioner could not be promoted because of his unsatisfactory record, It is further the contention of the respondents that Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta was promoted earlier to both, the petitioner and Sh. Lakhi Ram because his record was good at the time when the case of the petitioner and Sh. Lakhi Ram was considered in the year 1981 along with others. In 1981, when initiaily the cases for promotion were considered, the petitioner did not have a satisfactory record and against Sh. Lakhi Ram, the disciplinaryproceedingswere pending. After the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, a minor punishment of warning was given to Sh. Lakhi Ram was considered in the year 1981 along with others. In 1981, when initiaily the cases for promotion were considered, the petitioner did not have a satisfactory record and against Sh. Lakhi Ram, the disciplinaryproceedingswere pending. After the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, a minor punishment of warning was given to Sh. Lakhi Ram because of which his case was reconsidered for promotion in the light of the Instructions of the Government and he was promoted on ad hoc basis as Sub- Divisional Engineer w.e.f. the date from which his immediate junior Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta was promoted i.e. p9.04.1982 vide orderdated 02.12.1987 (Annexure P-2). The respondents, along with their written statement, have attached the summary of the Annual Confidentiaf Reports of the petitioner (Annexure R-1) 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner the relevant ACRs, which have to be taken into consideration for promotion, are ACRs for the year 1972-73 to 1980- 81 i.e. the last 10 years from the date when the consideration for promotion is to be given effect to. This position is fortified by the Government Instructions dated 13.04.1972, which have been notified by the Government of Haryana. As per these Instructions, the requirement for consideration for promotion is 10 years previous service record for determining the suitability for promotion from the date of consideration of the case for promotion and it further says that it should be 50% good or better than average reports for consideration to the post of promotion. The reply of the respondents would show that record of the petitioner was said to be unsatisfactory for this period. 5. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.4.1983 vide order dated 22.08.1986 (Annexure P-7) and the bench mark for consideration for passing the efficiency bar is 10years prior tothe consideration. He contends that since those very 10 years, which were earlier under consideration, were under consideration in the subsequent consideration for passing of the efficiency bar except for the two years i.e. 1981-82 and 1982-83, the bench mark for passing the efficiency bar is the same as that of promotion and since he has been found fit for crossing the efficiency bar, therefore, there could be no reason that he should not be promoted in the year 1981. He relying on the summary of ACRs (Annexure R-1), therefore, submits that only one report, which could go against him, was for the year 1979-80, which is an average report, where a punishment of censure has been given to him, which would reflect on integrity, a note has been given, which he contends that he has not been conveyed. However, in the light of the fact that he has been allowed to pass the efficiency bar and the 10 years were taken into consideration in which this very punishment has reflected in the 1979-80 ACR has been considered and therefore, he should have been considered and promoted on the basis of this very record in the year 1981. 6. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner has force. Once a person has been allowed to pass the efficiency bar for which the bench mark is the same is that is for promotion, you cannot have different interpretations or conditions while giving effect to the promotion. The 1979-80 ACR was very much in existence when the petitioner was allowed to pass the efficiency bar. Perusal of the summary of ACRs (Annexure R-1) would show that as a matter of fact the petitioner has two very good reports and five good reports and 3 average reports i.e. 70% better than average reports and this would show that the petitioner does fulfil the bench mark prescribed for promotion to the post as per Haryana Government Instructions dated 13.04.1972, which provide that 50% good or better than average reports are required for consideration to the promotional post and having done so, the petitioner was entitled to promotion. It is not disputed that for promotion the criteria prescribed is seniority- cum-merit, therefore, the Claim of the petitioner for promotion has been wrongly rejected by the respondents. 7. In the light of the above, the present writ petition is allowed, order dated 15.05.1989 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. A direction is issued to consider and promote the petitioner on the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (B&R) from the date, junior to the petitioner Sh. Lakhi Ram has been promoted. He would be entitled to all consequential benefits as has been granted to Sh. Lakhi Ram. The needful be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Lakhi Ram has been promoted. He would be entitled to all consequential benefits as has been granted to Sh. Lakhi Ram. The needful be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. This petition is disposed of with the above directions. Petition allowed