ORDER Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Brief facts for the decision of this matter are as under: 2. The Petitioner, an Assistant Sub Inspector posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was eligible to be promoted on the post of Mandi Inspector. The Petitioner's name was reflected at Serial No. 384 of the gradation list (Annexure P-2). The promotion orders were issued on 2-7-2008 (Annexure P-1). Shri Vivek Jain submits that the Petitioner was inflicted with a minor punishment on 21-2-2007. By that order, Petitioner's one annual increment was withheld for one year without cumulative effect. Shri Jain submits that the said currency of punishment came to an end on 25-2-2008. Shri Jain further submits that a bare perusal of the promotion order dated 2-7-2008 shows that the DPC for the same was convened on 26-6-2008. Shri Jain submits that on the date of DPC, the Petitioner was not under cloud nor was undergoing punishment. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that no adverse C.R. is communicated to him and he was not subjected to any other disciplinary proceedings, which can be a reason for depriving him from promotion. Shri Jain submits that the findings of DPC are irrelevant, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel further submits that right of consideration for promotion is now recognized as a statutory as well as fundamental right which flows from Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel further submits that right of consideration includes in it a right of meaningful consideration. Shri Jain submits that the Petitioner has been deprived from promotion on extraneous considerations and therefore, it warrants interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, Shri Nitin Agrawal submits that the Petitioner was undergoing punishment and DPC took it into account. He supported the findings of the DPC. The stand of Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Respondents is that DPC has not committed any error of law which warrants interference in the present writ proceedings. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Shri Nitin Agrawal also produced the DPC proceedings for the perusal of this Court. The stand of Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Respondents is that DPC has not committed any error of law which warrants interference in the present writ proceedings. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Shri Nitin Agrawal also produced the DPC proceedings for the perusal of this Court. The stand of the Respondents is that the Petitioner was not found suitable for promotion by the DPC in its meeting held on 26-6-2008 on the basis of norms and criteria fixed by it. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was inflicted with a punishment on 21-2-2007 and therefore, DPC rightly held that the Petitioner is unsuitable. 7. A bare perusal of DPC proceedings shows that Madhya Pradesh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002 were made applicable in the matter. As per Rule 4 of the said Rules, the promotion within Class III to Class III and even from Class III to Class II are required to be made on the criteria of "Seniority subject to fitness". The said rule is re-produced here-in-under: 4. Determination of basis of promotion.--(1) Promotion from Class IV to higher pay sale of Class IV, Class IV to Class III, Class III to higher pay scale of Class III, Class III to Class II, Class II to higher pay scale of class II and Class II to Class I posts shall be made on the basis of "seniority subject to fitness". (2) Promotion from Class I to higher pay scale of Class I posts shall be made on the basis of "merit-cum-seniority". 8. Rule 6 of the said Rules provides the method of promotion on the basis of "seniority subject to fitness". As per Rule 6(7), the DPC was required to consider the case of each public servant separately on the basis of his own merit. 9. In the light of aforesaid Rules, this Court has minutely perused the DPC proceedings. The DPC has drawn a list of eligible general candidates wherein the name of the Petitioner finds place at Serial No. 351. The Petitioner obtained four "Ka" and one "Kha". The total marks given to the Petitioner on the basis of aforesaid ACR entries were 14. In the light of aforesaid Rules, this Court has minutely perused the DPC proceedings. The DPC has drawn a list of eligible general candidates wherein the name of the Petitioner finds place at Serial No. 351. The Petitioner obtained four "Ka" and one "Kha". The total marks given to the Petitioner on the basis of aforesaid ACR entries were 14. In Clause 8 of the said DPC proceedings, it is mentioned that after scrutiny this fact came out that against the Petitioner by order dated 21-2-2007, penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed, only on the basis of this reason that the Petitioner had suffered a small punishment which continued from 25-2-2007 to 25-2-2008, he was not found fit for promotion in DPC which held on 26-6-2008. Thus, the pivotal question for determination is whether a minor punishment which lost its complete effect much before holding of DPC, can be a valid reason for depriving promotion in the criteria of "seniority subject to fitness"? 10. It is true that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the proceedings and decisions of DPC. However, the scope of interference in the findings of DPC is well established in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 , Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. In Para 40 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held as under: Unless there is a strong case for applying the Wednesbury doctrine or there are malafides, Courts and Tribunals cannot interfere with assessments made by Departmental Promotion Committees in regard to merit or fitness for promotion. But in rare cases, if the assessment is either proved to be malafide or is found based on inadmissible or irrelevant or insignificant and trivial material and if an attitude of ignoring or not giving weight to the positive aspects of one's career is strongly displayed, or if the inferences drawn are such that no reasonable person can reach such conclusions, or if there is illegality attached to the decision, then the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution are not foreclosed. (Emphasis added) 11. In view of this legal position, it is crystal clear that the Wednesbury principle is made applicable even in cases of DPC proceedings/promotion. (Emphasis added) 11. In view of this legal position, it is crystal clear that the Wednesbury principle is made applicable even in cases of DPC proceedings/promotion. If the findings of DPC are based on inadmissible, irrelevant or insignificant material/fact, this can very well be a ground to interfere in Article 226 proceedings. Thus, in the light of 2002 Rules; it is required to be examined whether singular reason of imposition of punishment which came to an end much before the date of DPC can be a valid reason to deprive the Petitioner from the fruits of promotion. 12. It is settled in law that right of consideration for promotion is statutory as well as fundamental under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the judgments reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 199 Co. Arumugam and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 209 , Ajit Singh and Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab and Ors. and (2007) 6 SCC 704 , Union of India and Ors. v. Sangram Keshri Nayak held that the right of consideration is a fundamental right and such right includes in it a right of meaningful consideration. 13. It is also settled in law in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 , that if an employee is served with a charge-sheet in a Departmental Enquiry and if a challan is filed against him in a criminal case, his fate will be kept in sealed cover. In that case, the DPC will consider his case for promotion but its outcome shall be kept in a sealed cover. If the person is exonerated from the charges, then only such sealed cover can be opened. A microscopic reading of 2002 Rules no where shows that there is any impediment for promotion to an employee who is inflicted with a minor punishment which came to an end much before the DPC. The rule no where provides that such employee can be treated as "unsuitable" for promotion. It is also settled in law in view of catena of judgments of Supreme Court that in the criteria of "seniority-cum-fitness/suitability", there is no scope of comparison of inter se merits of the candidates and seniority has to be given preference. The rule no where provides that such employee can be treated as "unsuitable" for promotion. It is also settled in law in view of catena of judgments of Supreme Court that in the criteria of "seniority-cum-fitness/suitability", there is no scope of comparison of inter se merits of the candidates and seniority has to be given preference. The Apex Court in the case reported in (2000) 6 SCC 698 , Union of India and Ors. v. Lt. Gen. R. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and Ors. held as under: There is no requirement of assessment of comparative merit both in the case of seniority-cum-fitness and seniority-cum-merit. 14. Recently in the case reported in (2010) 1 SCC 335 , Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors. v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. the Apex Court held as under: Where promotion is on the basis of seniority alone, merit will not play any part at all. 15. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear like noon day that once the Petitioner is admittedly eligible for consideration for promotion and has obtained sufficient marks to be promoted, the only impediment shown by the Respondents cannot be a ground for depriving him from the fruits of promotion. 16. In the present case, it is not disputed by the Respondents that a sizable number of juniors have been promoted. On perusal of the DPC proceedings, it is further gathered that the Petitioner has received 14 marks as per his ACR gradings whereas the persons who had received even nine marks in his category have been promoted. 17. In the light of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the DPC has taken into account an extraneous, irrelevant, inadmissible and insignificant material into consideration, i.e., a minor punishment which came to an end on 25-2-2008. Thus, this attracts Wednesbury principle. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Petitioner who was otherwise within the zone of consideration, eligible and obtained sufficient marks to be entitled for promotion, was deprived for promotion because of aforesaid irrelevant, insignificant and extraneous material which could not have been taken into account to deprive the Petitioner. Thus, the right of meaningful consideration for promotion of the Petitioner is infringed which hits Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 18. The result is inescapable. Thus, the right of meaningful consideration for promotion of the Petitioner is infringed which hits Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 18. The result is inescapable. The DPC proceedings are bad in law to the extent it declared the Petitioner as unsuitable for promotion on the basis of punishment dated 25-2-2007. The Respondents are, accordingly directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Mandi Inspector w.e.f. 2-7-2008, the date on which his juniors have been promoted to the said post. The Respondents are further directed to pay all consequential benefits to the Petitioner on his promotion from 2-7-2008. The aforesaid exercise be completed within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Respondents shall pay Rs. 5000/- as cost to the Petitioner. 19. The petition is allowed.