Judgment The prayer in the petition is for quashment of the order dated 22-6-2009 Annexure P/5 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby representation submitted by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Sub Auditor vide order dated 4-9-1965. Petitioner was promoted as Co-operative Inspector vide order dated 31-3-1981. Vide order dated 25-4-1992 petitioner was suspended for an offence punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act and petitioner was convicted against which an appeal has been filed, which was numbered as Cri. Appeal No. 51/2001, whereby petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 23-1-2007. In consequence to the judgment of acquittal dated 23-1-2007 petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 19-4-2007 and order of termination dated 26-2-2001 was withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner was retired on completion of age of superannuation on 30-4-2007. Vide order dated 23-5-2008 the adverse entries in the ACRs for the year 1991-92 were expunged, therefore, petitioner moved a representation, wherein petitioner submits that petitioner be promoted for retiral benefits. The representation was dismissed against which writ petition was filed, which was numbered as W.P. No. 2605/2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 27-4-2009, whereby order dated 5-3-2009, whereby representation was dismissed, was quashed and the respondents were directed to re-consider the representation. Consequently, the representation was re-considered and the same was dismissed against which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that while considering the representation respondent No. 2 has to take into consideration the CRs for the year 1991-92. Since the CRs of 1991-92 were having adverse entries and the same were expunged, therefore, CRs of 1991-92 should not have been taken into consideration. It is submitted that otherwise also respondent No. 2 committed error in dismissing the representation instead of taking into consideration the CRS of last five years i.e. 1986 to 1990. The respondent No. 2 has taken into consideration the ACRs of 1988 to 1992. It is submitted that after expunging the CRs of 1991-92, wherein petitioner was graded in the category of D and C respectively. The respondent No. 2 has taken into consideration the ACRs of 1988 to 1992. It is submitted that after expunging the CRs of 1991-92, wherein petitioner was graded in the category of D and C respectively. Respondent No. 2 put the petitioner in the year 1991 in the category of C but in the year 1 992 petitioner was kept in the same category without assigning any reason. It is submitted that petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to take into consideration the ACR of 1986 to 1990 and promoted the petitioner on the post of Senior Co-operative Inspector for the purpose of retiral benefits. 4. That undisputedly the petitioner was out of job w.e.f. 26-2-2001 till 19-4-2007. It is submitted that the D.P.C. was held on 30-6-1996 in which the case of the petitioner was considered and the result was kept in a sealed cover. It is submitted that it is true that adverse entries in the ACR were expunged vide order dated 23-5-2008 but petitioner was again awarded Grade "C" in the year 1991 and for the year 1992 the same was maintained. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for promotion. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. 6. In the matter of U. P. Jal Nigam vs. S. C. Atri and another, AIR 1999 SC 3362 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :- "On the date on which respondent was considered along with other-Executive Engineers for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there was an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 in his character roll on account of which he was not promoted although a representation against the adverse entry was pending. This adverse entry was subsequently expunged as his representation was allowed. The effect of the order allowing the expunction of the adverse entry would be that on the date on which he was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there existed no adverse entry in his character roll. Subsequently, it cannot be said that the respondent was not promoted on account of his unsuitability. The effect of the order allowing the expunction of the adverse entry would be that on the date on which he was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there existed no adverse entry in his character roll. Subsequently, it cannot be said that the respondent was not promoted on account of his unsuitability. That being so, the High Court was justified in ordering that respondent on being promoted, though subsequently, shall be entitled to reckon his seniority with effect from the date on which person junior to him was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. We are also informed that the respondent has since retired from service. We do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. " 1. Since the petitioner was awarded Grade "D" in the year 1991 and Grade "C" in the year 1992 and they were expunged vide order dated 23-5-2008, therefore, in the year 2008 again no grading could have been given by the respondents for that year. In this regard, the Circular dated 11-5-2004 is issued by the respondents which lays down that after expunging the adverse entries in the service record, no change can be made in that particular year. If the adverse entries of the year 1991 and 1992, which were not communicated to the petitioner and ultimately expunged, is not taken into consideration then there is no justification in holding that the petitioner is not entitled for being considered for promotion. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed with a direction that the respondents shall hold a review DPC for promotion to the post of Senior Cooperative Inspector. Since the petitioner has already been retired, his case be considered for promotion for the purpose of retiral benefits. Petition allowed.