JUDGMENT 1. This intra court appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan aggrieved by the decision rendered by the Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6353/2003 decided on 04.04.2008. 2. The facts of the case are that after retirement of the petitioner Dr. Prabhat Kumar Purohit on 31.04.2002, the case of the petitioner was due for consideration for the post of Joint Director against existing nine vacancies for the year 2000-01. The case of the petitioner Dr. Prabhat Kumar Purohit and four others was not considered because of non-availability of the record, whereas, six persons were promoted to the post of Joint Director. 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. As for want of availability of the service record, the case of the petitioner was not considered hence the writ petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to reconvene the meeting of departmental promotion committee to consider the 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 2000-01 in accordance with the Rules of 1963. 3. Aggrieved thereby, this intra court appeal has been preferred. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The fact is not in dispute that the case of petitioner Dr. Prabhat Kumar Purohit was not considered due to non-availability of the service record. It is also not in dispute that by now the promotion has been accorded in the course of contempt petition, in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The promotion was subject to the out-come of the present intra court appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the case for promotion of the petitioner Dr. Prabhat Kumar Purohit was illegally ignored by he employer appellant. By now, the record has been searched and promotion has already been made. The submission raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that petitioner Dr. Prabhat Kumar Purohit was himself responsible for not sending the record. Whatever that may be after re-constitution of the record, petitioner Dr. Prabhat Kumar Purohit has been found fit. By now, the record has been searched and promotion has already been made. The submission raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that petitioner Dr. Prabhat Kumar Purohit was himself responsible for not sending the record. Whatever that may be after re-constitution of the record, petitioner Dr. Prabhat Kumar Purohit has been found fit. We find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is fully to accordance with law. It was the responsibility of the employer to call for the record and to consider the case of seniors first. The fact that petitioner Dr. Prabhat Kumar Purohit was responsible for not sending the record has not been pleaded in the return, which has been filed by the State Government in the instant case before Single Bench. 6. Since, the order has been complied and review D.P.C. was required to be held and it has been held, we do not find any reason for interference in this special appeal. 7. Resultantly, this Special Appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.Special Appeal Dismissed. *******