JUDGMENT 1. - After retirement of the petitioner on 31.4.2002 while holding the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer, the respondent State Government convened meeting of departmental promotion committee on 9.4.2003 to consider candidature of the eligible Chief Medical & Health Officers for promotion to the post of Joint Director against existing nine vacancies for the year 2000-2001. The candidature of the petitioner and four other persons was not found fit to be promoted by the Committee due to non-availability of their service record. The fact aforesaid was noted by the Committee in minutes of its meeting as follows: " Mk0 izfrek tSu] Mk0 lR;ukjk;.k 'kekZ] Mh0ih0ds0 iqjksfgr] Mk0 jkeorkj 'kekZ ,oa Mk0ds0,y0 dqEHkV ds uke ij budk lsokfHkys[k iw.kZ@miyC/k ugha gksus ds dkj.k lfefr us bUgsa inksUufr gsrq mi;qZDr ugha ik;kA " 2. Promotion as Joint Director was accorded to 8 persons including the respondent No.3 and even as per the respondents out of the 8 persons so promoted, at least six were junior than the petitioner. The petitioner, by this petition for writ, is claiming for appointment by way of promotion as Joint Director, Medical and Health Services against the vacancies for the year 2000-2001. The fact regarding rejection of the candidature of the petitioner and four other persons due to nonavailability of service record is admitted by the respondents and is also confirmed by the Court by examining the minutes of the meeting of the departmental promotion committee. 3. The criteria for promotion to the post of Joint Director, Medical & Health Services as per the provisions of Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963 is seniority cum merit. The departmental promotion committee could have deferred consideration of the candidature of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons service record of whom was not available, but, in any case that could have not been a reason to declare them unfit for promotion. The departmental promotion committee, as a matter of fact, even without looking into record of the petitioner and other four persons did not find them fit for promotion. Such process is highly unjust, and therefore, is bad in eye of law. 4. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The departmental promotion committee, as a matter of fact, even without looking into record of the petitioner and other four persons did not find them fit for promotion. Such process is highly unjust, and therefore, is bad in eye of law. 4. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to reconvene the meeting of departmental promotion committee to consider candidature of the petitioner afresh for the purpose of promotion to the post of Joint Director, Medical and Health Services against the vacancies of the year 2000-2001 in accordance with the Rules of 1963. No order as to cost.Writ petition allowed. *******