ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is an employee of the respondent-company which is a Government of India Undertaking, and has been working on the post of Senior Manager since 1996, has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the fact of his non-promotion on the post of Deputy General Manager, i.e. from E-5 to E-6 grade. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who entered service of the respondent in the year 1972 and was ultimately promoted as Senior Manager in the year 1996, was eligible and entitled to be considered and promoted on the post of Deputy General Manager from the year 1999 onwards, but though he was called for interview continuously from the year 1999 to 2003, he has not been granted promotion while persons junior to him have been awarded promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager. It is alleged by the petitioner that no adverse entry has been communicated to him nor has the petitioner received any communication to indicate that his service record was bad to the extent that he was disqualified for promotion and, therefore, his non-promotion by the respondent-company is contrary to law and the petitioner deserves to be promoted on the post of Deputy General Manager. 3. The respondents have filed a return and submitted that the petitioner, who is working on the post of Senior Manager, was called for interview from the year 1999 till 2004, but was not granted promotion as he was not found fit in view of the fact that he did not' score necessary marks as per the promotion guidelines prevailing in the establishment of the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner was served with a memorandum on 30.9.2004 pursuant to which disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him in which a punishment of censure was imposed upon him by order dated 13.10.2004. It is further submitted that in respect of other misconduct another memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 22.5.2004 and an enquiry is still in progress. It is submitted that the petitioner was considered for promotion along with all others but he was not found eligible for promotion and therefore the same was. denied to him. 4. It is further submitted that in respect of other misconduct another memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 22.5.2004 and an enquiry is still in progress. It is submitted that the petitioner was considered for promotion along with all others but he was not found eligible for promotion and therefore the same was. denied to him. 4. Pursuant to orders passed by this Court the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings of the year 1999 to 2003 have been placed before this Court and have been scrutinized by the learned counsel for the parties as well as this Court. From a perusal thereof it is apparent that the petitioner's case was duly considered for promotion from E-5 to E-6 grade from the year 1999 to 2003 but he was not found eligible for promotion in all these years and was, therefore, not granted promotion on the post of Senior Manager. From a perusal of the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings held on 18/19.6.2004 it is apparent that the petitioner's case was considered for promotion but in view of the departmental enquiry against him his case was placed in a seal cover to be opened only on the completion of departmental proceedings against him. 5. In the circumstances, it is apparent from a perusal of the proceedings that the petitioner's case was considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in all these years but he was not awarded promotion as he was not found fit for the same in comparison to others who were considered and who scored much more marks than the petitioner. It is also evident that the petitioner was not denied promotion on account of any uncommunicated adverse entries or for some other unrelated reason as alleged by the petitioner but was not promoted as he was not as meritorious as the other employees considered along with him, who were more meritorious and scored more marks than him on assessment in accordance with the policy prevailing in the establishment of the respondent. It is also clear that the petitioner's case was considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 2004 and has been placed in a sealed cover awaiting final disposal of the departmental proceedings pending against him. 6. It is also clear that the petitioner's case was considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 2004 and has been placed in a sealed cover awaiting final disposal of the departmental proceedings pending against him. 6. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the , action taken by the respondent nor do I find any ground to issue a direction , to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for promotion or to grant him promotion along with others who have been promoted, specifically in view of the fact that his case has been duly considered by the respondent-authorities in accordance with law and he has not been found fit for promotion. 7. No case for issuing the writ as prayed by the petitioner is made lout, therefore, the petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of, the case, there shall be no order as to costs.