JUDGMENT 1. - Heard and perused the material available on record. 2. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief:- “(i) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the order dated 1.4.2010 (Annex.6) to the extent it debars the petitioner for promotion till next five promotional stage may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion after a period of five years on the basis of result of present examinations.” 3. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the respondent police department on 6.12.1994. He claims to be having unblemished service in the department till date. On 30.12.2009, an advertisement was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates for appearing in the test for promotion to the post of head constable. The petitioner submitted an application form dated 7.1.2010 for appearing in the promotion process. The petitioner stated in his application that 2 children were born to him after 1.6.2002 and he was having 1 child before that date. The petitioner appeared in the examination and was declared successful. Thereafter, he was called for second phase of outdoor examination vide communication dated 30.3.2010. The successful candidates in the said selection process were promoted vide order dated 1.4.2010 but as the petitioner had fathered a third child after the cut off date i.e. 1.6.2002, he was debarred from promotion till 5 promotional stages vide order dated 1.4.2010 which is impugned as Annex.6 in the instant writ petition. The petitioner has placed on record a State Government notification dated 13.8.2004 as per which, an embargo of 5 years on claim of promotion has been imposed on Govt. employee having a third child after the cut off date i.e. 1.6.2002. It is averred in the writ petition that owing to the disqualification of having a third child after the cut off date, a State Government employee can at best be deferred from being considered for promotion for 5 years and not for 5 promotional processes. employee having a third child after the cut off date i.e. 1.6.2002. It is averred in the writ petition that owing to the disqualification of having a third child after the cut off date, a State Government employee can at best be deferred from being considered for promotion for 5 years and not for 5 promotional processes. It is further averred that as the petitioner’s result was withheld due to this disqualification in a promotional process conducted in the year 2010, at best, the respondents were entitled to deny promotion to the petitioner for 5 years from 1.4.2010 but no sooner the embargo of five years was over, then, as per the said circular, the right of the petitioner to be promoted stood automatically revived. 4. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein the order Annex.6 is defended stating that the promotion is required to be withheld for 5 promotional processes and not 5 years as per the State Government’s circular and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petition. The fact regarding the petitioner’s success in the promotion process is not disputed in the reply. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as the circular dated 13.8.2004 issued by the State Government. 6. The circular dated 13.8.2004 imposes an embargo of 5 years against promotion upon such Government employees who get a third child after the cut off date i.e. 2.6.2002. The language of the relevant clause of the circular is material for deciding the controversy in hand and is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:- " 2- ,sls fdlh Hkh O;fDr dh inksUufr ij ml rkjh[k ls ftldks mldh inksUufr ns; gks tkrh gS ikap o"kZ rd fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxk] ;fn mlds 2 twu] 2002 dks ;k mlds i'pkr~ nks ls vf/kd cPps gksaA " 7. The circular thus clearly stipulates that an employee shall not be entitled to promotion for 5 years despite entitlement if he has more than 2 children on or after 2.6.2002. Thus, the embargo whereby the promotion can be denied to employee is effective for an outer limit of 5 years in view of the plain and simple language of the aforesaid circular. Thus, the embargo whereby the promotion can be denied to employee is effective for an outer limit of 5 years in view of the plain and simple language of the aforesaid circular. Thus, the denial of an opportunity of promotion to a Government employee carrying the above disqualification for a period in excess of 5 years is not permissible. The respondents themselves have placed on record a police department’s notification dated 20.6.2001, clause (1A) whereof reads as below:- “(1A) No person shall be considered for promotion for 5 recruitment years from the date on which his promotion becomes due, if he/she has more than two children on or after 1st June, 2002.” A recruitment year as per the Service Rules would start from the first date of month of April of the year and conclude on 31st March of next year. Thus, at best the respondents were entitled to defer the petitioner’s claim for promotion for 5 recruitment years starting from the first day on which he became entitled for such promotion. 8. The respondents permitted the petitioner to participate in the promotional process initiated vide recruitment notice dated 30.12.2009. As soon as, he cleared the selection process, he became due to be considered for promotion. Thereafter, on the strength of the above circular, the petitioner’s right for promotion could be deferred for the following 5 recruitment years which would culminate on 31st March of the fifth year from the date the petitioner cleared the promotional examination and not beyond that. Thereafter, on the strength of the above circular, the petitioner’s right for promotion could be deferred for the following 5 recruitment years which would culminate on 31st March of the fifth year from the date the petitioner cleared the promotional examination and not beyond that. The language of the order Annex.6 dated 1.4.2010 whereby, the right of the petitioner to be promoted was deferred, reads as below:- " Jh cq)jke iq= chjcyjke dkfu0 459 ( lkekU; oxZ ) jksy ua0 ,l&33 ftlds fnukad 01-06-2002 ds iwoZ ,d larku Fkh ,oa fnukad 01-06-2002 ds ckn fnukad 02-05-2003 dks nwljh larku fnukad 21-04-2005 dks rhljh larku iSnk gqbZ gSA vr% cq)kjke dkfu0 459 lkekU; oxZ dks jkT; ljdkj ds vf/klwpuk dzekad ,Q&7 ( 1 ) dkfeZd@d&2@97 fnukad 20-06-2001 ,oa 08-04-2003 o ifji= vkns'k fnukad 13-08-2004 iqfyl eq[;ky; ds i= dzekad i ( 6 ) @2 iq0&QkslZ@gSM dkfu0@vuq0&4@2006@7415 fnukad 21-11-2006 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa ,oa funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 01-06-2002 dks mo mlds mijkUr nks ls vf/kd larku gksus ds dkj.k bUgsa 5 ckj inksUufr dh LVst rd vkus ij inksUufr jksds tkus ds izko/kku dks e/;utj j[krs gq, bUgsa izFke ckn inksUufr dh LVst vkus ij inksUufr ls jksdk x;k gSA " 9. From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that deferment of opportunity to be promoted was imposed on the petitioner for 5 promotional stages which clearly runs contrary to the above mentioned State Government circular where under, for the disqualification of the nature carried by the petitioner, promotion is required to be deferred by 5 recruitment years. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the impugned order is grossly illegal and cannot be sustained. 10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order Annex.6 is hereby quashed. Now the deferment of opportunity to avail promotional avenue shall be applied on the petitioner for 5 recruitment years and not for 5 promotional stages from the first date his right to be considered for promotion became due. 11. Stay petition also stands disposed of. 12. No order as to cost.Writ petition allowed. *******