Judgment : While working as Inspector Grade I in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation {for short the Corporation}, the petitioner responded to Ext.P1 notification, by which the first respondent Corporation called for the confidential reports in respect of those persons, who were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Transport Officer. The period of review was 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007 (upto 30.6.2007). The petitioners confidential reports for the said period were called for. But he was not included in the list as per Ext.P2, though his juniors names were included. As evidenced by Ext.P8, the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the reports of candidates and found that, a punishment of bar of increment for one year without cumulative effect, was imposed on the petitioner as per order dated 26.2006. Similarly another punishment for three months without cumulative effect was also imposed, as per order dated 22.2005. It was found that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered, as he had suffered the punishment during the relevant period. That has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the stand taken by the Corporation is wrong, firstly because the punishment did not relate to a delinquency during the period, but much earlier. Secondly, the punishments in question are minor in nature viz., barring of an increment without cumulative effect. It is also pointed out that the second punishment of bar of increment for three months without cumulative effect actually came to be suffered only after the relevant period. 3. TheCorporation, in its counter affidavit, has taken a stand that, apart from the punishments, the Departmental Promotion Committee has taken into account the earlier history of the petitioner as well. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.Unnikrishnan, who was requested to assist this court as Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the Corporation. 5. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.Unnikrishnan, who was requested to assist this court as Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the Corporation. 5. Reference is made to Ext.P5 judgment of this court where, in the matter of employees of the Corporation, it was noted that as per the Rules prevailing in the Corporation, the officer/employee is entitled to be considered for promotion under the following circumstances: .(a) If anofficer/employee has been punished within the review period and the punishments are of major nature should not be considered for promotion; .(b) If anofficer/employee committed an offence prior to the review period and has been imposed punishment during the review period shall be considered for promotion; .(c) Those who have been awarded punishment of increment bar for a period less than one (1) year without cumulative effect shall be considered." 6. It is pointed out that the punishment is not a major punishment and that though the punishment has been imposed during the period, the offence was committed prior to the review period. The dictum laid down therein supports the case of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the bar of increment without cumulative effect is not a major punishment and it should not be taken into account for the purpose of selection conducted by the Departmental Promotion Committee. 7. Obviously, the petitioners case is eligible to be considered afresh by the corporation. The petitioner has since retired on 30.6.2008 and he might be eligible for notional promotion and consequential benefits. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P8 is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The corporation shall place the petitioners name in the next Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Assistant Transport Officer which shall consider his case in the light of the observations above and, if he is otherwise entitled to, he shall be given all consequential benefits. Needful shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I place on record my appreciation for the service rendered by the learned counsel Sri.Unnikrishnan as Amicus curiae.