JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Through instant writ petition, the petitioner (State) has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 8.1.2010, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1602 of 2007, Gaya Ram v. State of U.P., thereby allowing the claim petition and directing the petitioner to consider the opposite party No. 1 for promotion on the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II with effect from the date the same has been allowed to the officers junior to him and to pay all consequential benefit to him. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the opposite party No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department in the year 1972. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 21.5.1981, subsequently to the post of Superintending Engineer on 7.11.1994. As per the U.P. Engineering Services (Public Works Department), Higher Services Rules, 1990, the next higher post to the post of Superintending Engineer is Chief Engineer, Level-II and the same is to be filled up through promotion from amongst the Superintending Engineers on the basis of merit. The opposite party No. 1 by means of order dated 16.1.1996 awarded the punishment of censure and the representation dated 2.3.1996 against the same was rejected vide order dated 19.7.1996. The State Government by means of another order dated 8.2.1996 awarded punishment of censure to the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 was again awarded censure entry vide order dated 2.7.1996 for the year 1985-86 and 1986-87 and the representation against the same was also rejected vide order dated 20.6.1998. The adverse entry was awarded to the opposite party No. 1 vide order dated 25.8.1998 for the year 1998-99 and the representation preferred against the said order was rejected vide order dated 3.1.1999. The strict warning was awarded to the opposite party No. 1 vide order dated 20.5.1999 for the year 1999-2000 and for the year 1999-2000 special adverse entry was awarded on 26.6.1999, which was stayed vide order dated 23.4.2002. On 26.7.2004 an order was passed by which three punishments were awarded to the opposite party No. 1, namely, (i) stoppage of three increments for three years temporarily (ii) censure entry and (iii) integrity was withheld. On 16.9.2004, another order was passed by which strict warning was issued. On 26.7.2004 an order was passed by which three punishments were awarded to the opposite party No. 1, namely, (i) stoppage of three increments for three years temporarily (ii) censure entry and (iii) integrity was withheld. On 16.9.2004, another order was passed by which strict warning was issued. The punishment order dated 26.7.2004 was challenged by filing Claim Petition No. 944 of 2005 before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal stayed the same by means of order dated 17.1.2005. The Writ Petition No. 39311 of 1997 filed by the opposite party No. 1 for seeking promotion to the post of Chief Engineer Level-II was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy before the Tribunal. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2007. The opposite party No. 1 filed a Claim Petition No. 1602 of 2007 for issuing a direction to the present petitioner to promote him to the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II with effect from the date the same has been allowed to the officers junior to him with all consequential benefits. 3. The present petitioner filed detailed counter-affidavit/ written statement before the learned Tribunal and mentioned that the candidature of the opposite party No. 1 was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II for the year 1998-99, 2002-2003 and 2007-2008, but he was not found fit for promotion due to adverse material against him. 4. The submission of learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner (State) is that the claim petition of the opposite party No. 1 was allowed on the ground that the adverse material recorded for the year 1996 prior to that date should not have been considered against the opposite party No. 1 for promotion. 5. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that learned Tribunal failed to consider that when the opposite party No. 1 was promoted in the year 1994, no adverse entry was there against the opposite party No. 1 as the adverse entry was recorded in the year 1996. The learned Tribunal also failed to consider that apart from the punishment awarded to the opposite party No. 1 by means of order dated 16.1.1996 and 8.2.1996, there was other material also and the same was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the opposite party No. 1 was not found suitable. The learned Tribunal also failed to consider that apart from the punishment awarded to the opposite party No. 1 by means of order dated 16.1.1996 and 8.2.1996, there was other material also and the same was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the opposite party No. 1 was not found suitable. The order of Tribunal confines only to two punishments order dated 16.1.1996 and 8.2.1996, as such, the findings of the learned Tribunal are not only erroneous but is also against the record. The direction issued by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside as the candidature of the opposite party No. 1 has already been considered thrice i.e. in the year 1998-99, 2002-2003 and 2007 and 2008. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 while opposing the writ petition submitted that there is no illegality in the order of learned Tribunal and the punishment orders dated 16.1.996 and 8.2.1996 relate to the year 1991 and the said entry is to be treated for the year concerned and not for the year in which the same has been awarded. Therefore, the same could not have been taken into consideration as the opposite party No. 1 was subsequently promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer on 7.11.1994 and was granted selection grade vide order dated 7.7.2004. The observation of learned Tribunal that there is no adverse material against the opposite party No. 1 is perfectly correct and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as the judgment and order of learned Tribunal. 8. From perusal of the judgment and order of learned Tribunal, it reveals that only two punishment orders dated 16.1.1996 and 8.2.1996 have been taken into consideration while allowing the claim petition on the ground that the said entry relates to the year 1991 and the opposite party No. 1 was promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer on 7.11.1994. 8. From perusal of the judgment and order of learned Tribunal, it reveals that only two punishment orders dated 16.1.1996 and 8.2.1996 have been taken into consideration while allowing the claim petition on the ground that the said entry relates to the year 1991 and the opposite party No. 1 was promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer on 7.11.1994. Subsequently, the opposite party No. 1 was granted selection grade of the said post vide order dated 7.7.1994 and the said order is to be read for the year in question and it cannot be considered for the year when it was awarded and the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no adverse material against the opposite party No. 1 and he is eligible for relief claimed in the claim petition and accordingly directed to consider and promote the opposite party No. 1 to the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II with effect from the date the same has been allowed to the juniors to him with all consequential benefits as per rules. 9. The perusal of record also shows that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the averments made in the written statement of the petitioner that the opposite party No. 1 has been awarded various punishments from time to time for committing irregularities. The details of the same have been innumerated in paras-5 to 14 of the writ petition. The record further shows that vide order dated 26.7.2004 the opposite party No. 1 was awarded three punishments, by which three increments for three years temporarily have been stopped. He was censured and integrity was also withheld, even thereafter on 16.9.2004 the opposite party No. 1 was also issued strict warning. Therefore, it cannot be said that apart from two entries, which were taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal, there was no adverse material against the opposite party No. 1. The learned Tribunal has also loses site of the fact that candidature of the opposite party No. 1 was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and he was not found suitable on the criteria of merit. The learned Tribunal has also loses site of the fact that candidature of the opposite party No. 1 was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and he was not found suitable on the criteria of merit. The record of the writ petition shows that the candidature of the opposite party No. 1 was considered thrice for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II for the years, namely, 1998-99, 2002-2003 and 2007-2008, therefore, there was no justification for directing the petitioners to consider the candidature and promote the opposite party No. 1 on the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II with effect from the date juniors to him have been promoted. 10. On considering the issue in its entirety, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order of learned Tribunal dated 8.1.2010 suffer from illegality or infirmity and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. The judgment and order of Tribunal is hereby quashed. 12. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. —————