Judgment S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the State of Goa, Goa Public Service Commission and one U.L. Salunke, Executive Engineer (Civil), Electricity Department respectively. The petitioner has sought a writ to quash the impugned order dated 11th February, 2005, by which respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) Electricity Department. The petitioner has also sought a writ directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to hold a fresh DPC and consider the petitioner for promotion to the said post in accordance with law with effect from 11th February, 2005. 2. It is not necessary to consider all the contentions raised by the petitioner. This petition can be disposed of on one ground alone. It is agreed that the said post is a promotional post; that prior to the appointment of respondent No.4 to the said post, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were Assistant Engineers and that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were entitled to be considered for promotion. It is also agreed that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are Diploma holders. Accordingly, the qualifying service in respect of both of them is 12 years. Lastly, it is also agreed that while considering such candidates for promotion to the said post, clause 6.2.1 of the Guidelines for the D.P.C. Applies. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: “Confidential Reports 6.2.1 Confidential Rolls are the basic inputs on the basis of which assessment is to be made by each DPC. The evaluation of CRs should be fair, just and non-discriminatory. Hence - (b) The DPC should assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to the CRs for 5 preceding years. However, in cases where the required qualifying service is more than 5 years, the DPC should see the record with particular reference to the CRs for the years equal to the required qualifying service. (If more than one CR has been written for a particular year, all the CRs for the relevant year shall be considered together as the CR for one year). (emphasis supplied.) 3. The DPC, however, considered the CRs in respect of the petitioner and respondent No.4 only for the 5 preceding years. The DPC ought to have considered the CRs for 12 years which is the required qualifying service in respect the petitioner and respondent No.4. (emphasis supplied.) 3. The DPC, however, considered the CRs in respect of the petitioner and respondent No.4 only for the 5 preceding years. The DPC ought to have considered the CRs for 12 years which is the required qualifying service in respect the petitioner and respondent No.4. 4. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of by following order: (I) Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are directed to hold a review DPC and to consider the promotion of the petitioner and respondent No.4 in accordance with the said Clause 6.2.1 set out above. The Government shall act in accordance with the decision of the DPC and fix the effective date of promotion in accordance with law. (II) Till the decision of the DPC and the Government, the appointment of respondent No.4 shall not be disturbed. The same shall be subject to the decision of the review DPC and the respondents. (III) The respondents and the DPC are requested to complete the process within 12 weeks. No order as to costs.