JUDGMENT 1. - Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution the appellant approached this court seeking quashing of the order dated April 15, 1996 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal whereby the selection of the appellant on the post of Associate Professor was quashed. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated October 1, 1997. Hence this appeal. 2. Contextual facts depict that the vacancies of the post of Reader/Associate Professor for the year 1989-90 were reserved for Scheduled Caste (for short `SC') Candidates. Since SC candidates were not available five persons viz. Dr. Meenaxi Sharma, Dr. Balaram Chaudhary, Dr. S.L. Mandowara, Dr. B.L. Sharda and Dr. Deepak Shivpuri from general category were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (For short `DPC') and their names were recommended for the said post. Dr. S.L. Mandowara preferred the appeal on January 28, 1992 before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short `Tribunal') challenging the order dated August 4, 1990. The Tribunal found that neither Dr. S.L. Mandowara nor Baldev Ram Chaudhary were having very good or outstanding ACRs for the last seven years as such selection was quashed and State Government was directed to re-convene the meeting of DPC. It was also directed that if no suitable candidate is available on merit then selection be made on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit. 3. The grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Bench was that against the order dated August 4, 1990 the appeal was filed on January 28, 1992, which according to Section 9 of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (for short `1976 Act') was beyond limitation. According to 5 Section 9 the appeal could have been filed within sixty days of the order. Since no sufficient cause was shown for not preferring the appeal within limitation the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the appeal. The appellant also assailed the impugned orders on merit. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Having scanned the material on record we find that the order dated August 4, 1990 was not communicated to the appellant, therefore, the Tribunal rightly entertained the appeal from the date of knowledge of the order. 6. The Tribunal after examining the ACRs of the appellant for the years 1982-83 to 1988-89 observed that ACRs for two years were `Very Good' four years were `Average' and for one year was `Good'. 6. The Tribunal after examining the ACRs of the appellant for the years 1982-83 to 1988-89 observed that ACRs for two years were `Very Good' four years were `Average' and for one year was `Good'. Therefore the appellant was not entitled to be promoted in view of Explanation to Rule 24-A (ii)C of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short `1962 Rules') which provided at the relevant time that for purpose of selection for promotion on the basis of merit, officers with `outstanding' or consistently `Very Good' record shall only be selected and their names arranged in order of seniority. 7. Since the record of appellant was not consistently `outstanding' or `Very Good', he could not have been given promotion. We see no illegality in the order of learned Single judge as well as in the order of Tribunal. 8. As a result of the above discussion, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same accordingly stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******