ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner's grievance was for promotion to the post of Junior Officer (J-0) Grade under the respondent- Bokaro Steel Plant. The petitioner alleged that his junior has been promoted and his case was withheld only on account of pendency of a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 452 of 2003 in which he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 17.4.2010 (Annexure-4) passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro. It is also his case that he has been exonerated from the inquiry conducted earlier as per Annexure-3, letter dated 28.4.2005 with a warning that such instance be not repeated in future. 3. In the wake of claim of the petitioner, as aforesaid, according to the learned counsel for the respondent- company, petitioner joined the Bokaro Steel Limited on 17.12.1982 as Junior Trainee; he was regularized on 178.6.1984, he was promoted to N4 grade w.e.f. 21.8.1987; he was promoted to L5 grade w.e.f. 31.12.1990; he was promoted to S6 grade w.e.f. 31.12.1994; to S7 grade w.e.f. 31.12.1998; to S8 grade w.e.f 31.12.2002, to S9 grade w.e.f. 31.12.2006 and finally to S10 grade w.e.f. 31.12.2010. These promotions were effected in the Non Executive grade of the Company. On the plea of the petitioner that his promotion to the Junior Officer (J-0) grade has been withheld due to pendency of criminal case, learned counsel for the respondent- Company submitted that promotion from Non Executive to Executive cadre is as per the promotion policy, whereunder there are 4 criteria of written test, interview, performance rating and experience, on the combined assessment of which, a person is considered for promotion. According to the respondents during the consideration of the petitioner's case along with others for promotion to J-0 Grade by the D.P.C. in 2008 and 2010, on both occasions he was not selected vis-a-vis some of his juniors after such assessment of the petitioner under the 4 criteria enumerated herein above. It is the case of the respondents that pendency of the criminal case was not a reason for withholding the promotion. The aforesaid stand of the respondents have not been refuted specifically by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. 4. It is the case of the respondents that pendency of the criminal case was not a reason for withholding the promotion. The aforesaid stand of the respondents have not been refuted specifically by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and in the aforesaid state of assertion and denial by the rival parties, it is evident that the case of the petitioner was considered by the D.P.C in 2008 and 2010 and rejection of his promotion was not based upon the pendency of the criminal case rather on the assessment of various criteria laid down for such promotion under the policy for promotion in vogue in the respondent-company. Petitioner, however has failed to make out a case that despite such assessment any person who has secured less point than him in the said assessment exercise has been promoted ahead of the him, though junior to him. On consideration of these facts and circumstances, it appears that petitioner has failed to make out a case for his promotion to the J-0 grade. 5. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed.