JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs (i) The impugned order dated 17.04.06 (Annex-P/9) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to assign the proper seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Specialist (Medicines) by assigning him quota of 1995-96 vacancies. (ii) The impugned tentative seniority list dated 11.12.07 (Annex-P/13) may kindly be quashed and set aside or in the alternative, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue necessary corrigendum by issuing final seniority list of Junior Specialist (Medicines) and assigning proper seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Specialist (Medicines) by reckoning his seniority from 1995-96. (iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant proper seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Specialist (Medicines) by treating him to be promoted against the vacancies of 1995-96 with all consequential benefits. (iv) Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with costs. (v) Any other appropriate order which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner acquired the qualification of M.B.B.S. from S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur in the year 1984. Thereafter, he started pursuing post graduation studies in the speciality of General Medicine. The petitioner was selected by R.PS.C. as a medical officer vide order dated 21.10.1986. He requested for and was given extension of time to join the duties so that he could complete the post graduation course and finally, joined duty as a medical officer on 8.5.1987. The petitioner has asserted that for a period of almost a decade, he discharged his duties in an unblemished manner till the year 1998 when a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules of 1958 came to be issued to him. The inquiry instituted pursuant to the above charge-sheet culminated in the petitioner's favour and the disciplinary authority agreed with the enquiry officer's report and exonerated the petitioner of the charges on 10.11.2000. 4. A meeting of the D.P.C. was convened to consider the cases of the 3 eligible and qualified medical officers for promotion to the post of Junior Specialist (Medicine) for the vacancies of 1995-96. 4. A meeting of the D.P.C. was convened to consider the cases of the 3 eligible and qualified medical officers for promotion to the post of Junior Specialist (Medicine) for the vacancies of 1995-96. Cases of 160 candidates including the petitioner were taken up for consideration by the D.P.C. The D.P.C., vide its minutes Annex. P/5 dated 30.1.1996, adjudged 110 candidates suitable for promotion in adherence of the criterion of seniority cum merit as per the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1963'). The petitioner's name appeared at S.No. 79 in the list of eligible candidates. A consequential promotion order Annex. 6 dated 29.2.1996 was issued in favour of the petitioner. After the above turn of events, a tentative seniority list of Junior Specialists (Medicine) came to be issued for the first time on 17.10.2000. The petitioner was surprised to find that his name was not included in the seniority list upon which, he submitted his objections through proper channel on 24.11.2000. The objections were not heeded to for quite a long period. The petitioner kept on repeating his request for including his name in the seniority list until 2006. For the first time, the petitioner was forwarded an order Annex.P/9 dated 17.4.2006 conveying that he had not completed 8 years of experience on the feeder post as on 1.4.1995 when the D.P.C. was convened and as such, after being promoted on 29.2.1996, the cases of the petitioner and 19 other similar candidates were reconsidered and the recommendations of the D.P.C. convened for considering the vacancies of 1995-96 were reviewed and the petitioner and a few other medical officers who had not completed 8 years of experience required for promotion to the post of Junior Specialist (Medicine) as per the applicable Rules were not considered therein. Thereafter, another D.P.C. was convened for the vacancies of 1996-97 on 10/11.7.1999. The petitioner's case was also taken up but his result was kept in a sealed envelope because he was facing inquiry under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules of 1958. The inquiry culminated in favour of the petitioner on 10.11.2000 and accordingly, he was accorded promotion for the vacancies falling during the year 1996-97 instead of the vacancies for the year 1995-96. Simultaneously, vide order dated 17.4.2006 (Annex.P/9), the promotion afforded to the petitioner vide order dated 29.2.1996 was cancelled. The inquiry culminated in favour of the petitioner on 10.11.2000 and accordingly, he was accorded promotion for the vacancies falling during the year 1996-97 instead of the vacancies for the year 1995-96. Simultaneously, vide order dated 17.4.2006 (Annex.P/9), the promotion afforded to the petitioner vide order dated 29.2.1996 was cancelled. The petitioner was given seniority between positions nos. 244 and 245 in the seniority list published on 17.4.2006. 5. The petitioner represented against the said action of the respondents in cancelling his promotion by order dated 17.4.2006 after 10 years without providing him any opportunity of hearing but the same was not responded to. The objections submitted by the petitioner against the tentative seniority list are reportedly pending consideration. 5. The petitioner represented against the said action of the respondents in cancelling his promotion by order dated 17.4.2006 after 10 years without providing him any opportunity of hearing but the same was not responded to. The objections submitted by the petitioner against the tentative seniority list are reportedly pending consideration. The order Annex P/9 dated 17.4.2006, legality and validity whereof is under challenge in this writ petition, is reproduced as a whole for the sake of ready reference:- jktLFkku ljdkj fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; xzqi&2 foHkkx dzekad%i0&6¼5½fpLok@2@99 fnukad 17-4-06 vkns'k bl foHkkx ds vkns'k dzekad i0&1¼19½fpLok@2@95 fnukad 29-2-96 ds }kjk MkW0 ih0ds0 vkjksM+k dks o"kZ 1995&96 dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) inksUufr gsrq fnukad 30-1-96 dks vk;ksftr Mhihlh dh fu.kZ;kuqlkj dfu"B fo'ks"kK ¼esfMlu½ lqesjiqj ¼ikyh½ ds in ij inLFkkfir fd;k x;k FkkA pwafd MkW0 vjksM+k us fnukad 1-4-95 dks fu;ekuqlkj 8 o"kZ dk vuqHko iw.kZ ugha fd;k FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa ,sls leku 19 ekeyksa ij fopkj fd;k tkdj o"kZ 95&96 dh fjfDr;ksa gsrq iwoZ esa vk;ksftr Mhihlh ds fu.kZ;ksa dk iqufoZyksdu fd;k x;kA ftlesa MkW0 vjksM+k ds uke ij 8 o"kZ dk;kZuqHko iw.kZ ugha gksus ds dkj.k fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr o"kZ 96&97 esa miyC/k fjDr inksa gsrq fnukad 10&11-7-99 dks vk;ksftr Mhihlh esa MkW0 vjksM+k dk inksUufr ifj.kke can fyQkQs esa j[kk x;k D;ksafd rRle; buds fo:) lhlh,&16 esa foHkkxh; tkap dkfeZd foHkkx ds Lrj ij yfEcr FkhA dkfeZd foHkkx ds vkns'k la[;k i0&1¼106½dkfeZd@d&3@96 fnukad 10-1-2006 }kjk MkW0 vkjksM+k ds fo:) vkjksi izekf.kr ugha gksus ds dkj.k izdj.k lekIr dj fn;k x;k gSA vr% o"kZ 96&97 dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) can p;u ifj.kke ds fyQkQs dks [kksydj bUgsa dfu"B fo'ks"kK ¼esfMlu½ ds in ij o"kZ 95&96 ds LFkku ij o"kZ 96&97 esa ,rn~}kjk inksUur fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k fnukad 29-2-96 }kjk o"kZ 95&96 dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) dh x;h inksUufr dks rRdky fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA mijksDr inksUufr ds QyLo:i MkW0 vjksM+k dh ofj"Brk fnukad 17-10-2000 dks tkjh ofj"Brk lwph esa dze la[;k 244 ,oa 245 ds e/; fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA budk inLFkkiu LFkku iwokZuqlkj ;Fkkor jgsxkA vkKk ls] lgh@& 'kklu mi lfpo^^ 6. The petitioner served a notice for demand of justice to the respondents through his counsel on 17.1.2011 but the same was not responded to, upon which the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking the above mentioned relief. 7. The petitioner served a notice for demand of justice to the respondents through his counsel on 17.1.2011 but the same was not responded to, upon which the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking the above mentioned relief. 7. The petitioner has relied upon numerous provisions of the Rules of 1963 for challenging the order dated 17.4.2000 and the action of the respondents in not assigning him appropriate seniority as a consequence of his promotion in the year 1996. Much stress is laid on Rule 37 of the Rules of 1963 which provides for powers of relaxation of the Government in relation to age or requirement of experience and it is contend in the writ petition that the petitioner was falling short of the requisite experience of 8 years only by one month when the D.P.C. was convened on 30.1.1996 and thus, it has to be assumed that the shortfall of one month was deemingly relaxed when the D.P.C. considered the petitioner's case and recommended him for promotion. 8. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition. The crux of the reply is that when the D.P.C. was convened on 30.1.1996 for making promotion to the post of Junior Specialist (Medicine) for the vacancies of the year 1995-96, 20 medical officers including the petitioner were wrongly included in the list of candidates falling in the zone of consideration because they had not completed 8 years regular service on the feeder post by the cut off date i.e. 1.4.1995. Accordingly, a proposal for holding review D.P.C. was sent to the State Government as per Rules. The review D.P.C. was convened on 20.9.1997 in which also the names of the petitioner and 19 other medical officers were not included in the zone of consideration as per the Rules. At that time, the departmental inquiry mentioned above under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was pending against the petitioner in pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 18.2.1998 and thus, his result was kept in a sealed cover. After conclusion of the departmental inquiry in favour of petitioner, he was given promotion against the vacancies of 1996-97 and, therefore, the order oil petitioner's promotion against the vacancies of 1995 - 96 was cancelled. After conclusion of the departmental inquiry in favour of petitioner, he was given promotion against the vacancies of 1996-97 and, therefore, the order oil petitioner's promotion against the vacancies of 1995 - 96 was cancelled. As regards the tentative seniority list of Junior Specialist (Medicine) published on 17.10.2000, it is claimed that the petitioner's name was rightly not included in the said seniority list because no order promoting the petitioner was issued and was in existence on that date. The respondents have justified their stance in placing the petitioner at S.No. 133 in the seniority list of Junior Specialist (Medicine) published on 11.12.2007. The impugned order dated 17.4.2006 Annex. 9 is also sought to be justified on the strength of the submission noted above. 9. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents and along with the rejoinder, a copy of an informal noting issued by the Information Officer is annexed as Annex. 16. The noting has a material bearing on the fate of the instant writ petition and is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference :- vukSipkfjd fVIi.kh fo"k;%& lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e&05 ds rgr vihy la[;k 33@08 MkW0 izoh.k dqekj vjksM+k cuke vfrfjDr funs'kd ¼jktif=r½ mijksDr fo"k; esa MkW0 izoh.k dqekj vjksM+k] dfu"B fo'ks"kK ¼esfMlu lqesjiqj ikyh½ }kjk dfu"B fo'ks"kK esfMlu dh o"kZ 1995&96 dh fjfDr;ksa gsrq fnukad 19-05-96 dks vk;ksftr foHkkxh; inksUufr lfefr dh okafNr izksflfMaXl dh izekf.kr Nk;k izfr layXu gSA vihy ds fcUnq la[;k 1 o 2 ds lEcU/k esa fVIi.kh fuEukuqlkj gS%& 1- MkW0 izoh.k dqekj vjksM+k dks fnukad 29-02-96 }kjk o"kZ 1995&96 dh fjfDr ds fo:) fd;s x;s inksUufr vkns'k dks vkns'k fnukad 17-04-06 }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa viukbZ xbZ izfdz;k dh uksV 'khV dh izfr layXu gSA blesa dkfeZd foHkkx ,oa yksd lsok vk;ksx dh dksbZ fVIi.kh ugha gSA 2- iwoZ esa fnukad 30-01-96 dks vk;ksftr Mh0ih0lh0 dh vfHk'ka"kk ds iqujkoyksdu gsrq dkfeZd foHkkx ls dh x;h Lohd`fr dh Nk;k izfr layXu gSA mYys[kuh; gS] fd bu fpfdRldksa ds fjO;w Mh0ih0lh0 }kjk p;u mijkUr p;u o"kZ esa ifjorZu fd;k x;kA o"kZ 1996&97 o 97&98 dh fjfDr;ksa gsrq fnukad 10@11-07-98 dks vk;ksftr foHkkxh; inksUufr lfefr dh vfHk'ka"kk dh izfr layXu gSA o"kZ 1995&96 ds inksUufr vkns'k fujLr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k tkjh gksuk izrhr ugha gksrk gSA lgh@& la;qDr funs'kd jktif=r tu lwpuk vf/kdkj] ,oa vfr0 funs'kd ¼jktif=r½ eq[;ky;^^ 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the manner in which the authority dealt with the petitioner's case is totally arbitrary, illegal and virtually amounts to victimization. He asserted that the respondents deliberately did not place on record a copy of the minutes of review D.P.C. meeting wherein the petitioner's case was again taken up for consideration against the vacancies occurring in the year 1996-97. He submits that since the order dated 29.2.1996 promoting the petitioner pursuant to the D.P.C. held on 30.1.1996 was never cancelled or recalled, there was no occasion for the petitioner's case to has been taken up on the review D.P.C. convened for considering the vacancies of the year 1996-97. He further submits that as per the communication Annex. 16 which was supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, it is clear that no order cancelling the petitioner's promotion pursuant to the D.P.C. convened for the vacancies of 1995-96 was ever passed. Thus, he contended that the whole case as set up by the respondents in the order Annex. P/9 and the reply is a pure figment of imagination and is nothing but an attempt to cover up their fraudulent action and amounts to a colourable exercise of power. Relying on Rule 11B of the Rules of 1963, he contended that convening a review DPC is impermissible without taking concurrence of the Department of Personnel. As per him, no such concurrence was taken and thus even if any review DPC was convened as claimed by the respondents and the petitioner's name was considered therein then too the same has no sanctity whatsoever. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments (1) Kusheswar Nath Pandey. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 580 . (2) I.L. Dhakolia. v. The Administrator, Govt, of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors. (C.W.R No. 5557/1993 decided by Delhi High Court). and contended that once a time bound promotion was granted to the petitioner, cancellation thereof was not permissible because the promotion accorded to the petitioner in the year 1996 is not attributed to any fraud or misrepresentation on his part. He contended that in view of Rule 37 of the Rules, the authorities have power to give relaxation as regards the requirement of experience. The petitioner was afforded regular promotion pursuant to recommendations made by the D.P.C. convened on 30.1.1996. He contended that in view of Rule 37 of the Rules, the authorities have power to give relaxation as regards the requirement of experience. The petitioner was afforded regular promotion pursuant to recommendations made by the D.P.C. convened on 30.1.1996. At that point of time, for coming in the zone of consideration, the petitioner was falling short by just one month in the requisite experience of 8 years on the feeder post. Thus, as per the learned counsel, it has to be assumed that the shortfall of one month in the experience for bringing the petitioner in the zone of consideration was condoned by fiction of law. He urged that the impugned order clearly reflects a blatant abuse of power in as much as a valid promotion order issued in the petitioner's favour ten years back has been cancelled from an ante date and that too, without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He thus prayed that the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned order Annex. 9 dated 17.4.2006 be quashed and the respondents be directed to assign appropriate seniority to the petitioner treating him to be promoted on the post of Junior Specialist (Medicine) with effect from 29.2.1996. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents feebly attempted to defend the action of the authority. It is relevant to note that the minutes of the review DPC meeting allegedly convened to reconsider the case of the petitioner and 19 other officers have not been placed on record by the respondents. A pertinent query was put to the learned counsel for the respondents regarding sanctity of the minutes of the review D.P.C. (claimed to have been convened on 10/11.7.1998 as per Annex. 16, 20.9.1997 as per the reply and 10/11.7.1999 as per the impugned order Annex. 9) for examining the vacancies of the year 1996-97 wherein the petitioner's case was allegedly considered but she failed to satisfy the Court in that regard. 12. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. As per the admitted facts disclosed from the information Annex. 9) for examining the vacancies of the year 1996-97 wherein the petitioner's case was allegedly considered but she failed to satisfy the Court in that regard. 12. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. As per the admitted facts disclosed from the information Annex. 16 supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act (the language whereof has been reproduced herein above), no order cancelling the order of promotion dated 29.2.1996 issued in favour of the petitioner promoting him against the vacancies of 1995-96 issued in favour of the petitioner promoting him against the vacancies of 1995-96 was ever issued by the department. The respondents have harped much upon the fact the petitioner was not falling in the zone of consideration on account of lack of 8 years' experience on the feeder post when the D.P.C. was convened for considering promotions to the post of Junior Specialist on 30.1.1996. However, the fact remains that despite this shortfall of about one month in the experience on the feeder post, the petitioner's case was included amongst the list of candidates falling in the zone of consideration and the D.P.C. convened on 30.1.1996 took a conscious decision and recommended the names of 110 candidates including the petitioner for promotion. Pursuant to the recommendations of the D.P.C., the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Specialist (Medicine) by order Annex. 6 dated 29.2.1996 and unabatedly continued to work on the said post. As per the admitted case of the respondents, no order informing the petitioner of his alleged reversion to the post of Medical Officer was ever issued or communicated to him. The respondents have taken a plea that a review D.P.C. was convened after the D.P.C held on 30.1.1996 and therein, the petitioner's name was taken up for consideration because till the earlier D.P.C. meeting, he had not completed 8 years of experience and was not eligible for consideration. There is a serious doubt as to whether any review D.P.C. as claimed by the respondents was ever convened. The petitioner claims to have no knowledge of such a review D.P.C and rightly so. These contradictory dates are revealed from the record as regards the holding of the review D.P.C meeting, (i) As per Annex. 9-10/11.7.1999, (ii) As per the Reply-20.9.1997, and (iii) As per Annex. 16-10/11.7.1998. The petitioner claims to have no knowledge of such a review D.P.C and rightly so. These contradictory dates are revealed from the record as regards the holding of the review D.P.C meeting, (i) As per Annex. 9-10/11.7.1999, (ii) As per the Reply-20.9.1997, and (iii) As per Annex. 16-10/11.7.1998. These contradictions in the dates create a throw grave doubt about the genuineness of the case set up by the respondents in this regard. Even assuming that any such meeting was convened then too, there was no occasion for the review D.P.C. to take up the petitioner's case for consideration in as much as, the petitioner had already been promoted in pursuance of the earlier recommendations. The respondents have of course set up a case that the petitioner was wrongly granted promotion by order dated 29.2.1996 and as such, his promotion order was cancelled and then, his case was again recommended for promotion in the review D.P.C. which was convened to consider the subsequent year's vacancy. In view of the facts as they admittedly stand, the petitioner's case could not have been taken up for consideration in the review D.P.C. convened for considering the vacancies falling in the year 1996-97 because the promotion which had been afforded to the petitioner (vide order Annex. P/6 dated 29.2.1996) in pursuance of the recommendations of D.P.C. held on 30.1.1996 was holding strong and was never cancelled as is reflected from the language of the document Annex. P/16. Therefore, it is evident that the whole case as set up in the order Annex. P/9 dated 17.4.2006 regarding the petitioner's case having been reconsidered and removed from the zone of consideration against the vacancies of 1995-96 is absolutely a farce. It is not stated in the reply that concurrence of the Department of Personnel was taken as required under Rule 11B of the Rules of 1963 before convening the review D.P.C. and thus even if for a moment, it is accepted for arguments sake that any such meeting was convened then also, it would have no sanctity in law whatsoever. The respondents have not placed on record any order whereby, subsequent to the dropping of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner on 10.11.2000, the review D.P.C. recommendations qua the petitioner which were kept in sealed cover was opened and the petitioner was granted promotion thereafter. By order Annex. The respondents have not placed on record any order whereby, subsequent to the dropping of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner on 10.11.2000, the review D.P.C. recommendations qua the petitioner which were kept in sealed cover was opened and the petitioner was granted promotion thereafter. By order Annex. P/9 dated 17.4.2006, it was proposed that the petitioner's promotion in the year 1996 was being cancelled. However, the action was proposed without giving any notice or any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is thus bad in the eye of law. 14. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the order Annex. P/9 whereby the following consequences were inflicted upon the petitioner (1) That the petitioner's case was not considered for the vacancies falling in the year 1995-96 because he was not having 8 years experience on the feeder post; (2) That the petitioner's case was considered by the D.P.C. convened for examining the vacancies of the year 1996-97 and the result of the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover because he was facing an inquiry under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules of 1958; (3) That the inquiry against the petitioner was dropped on 10.1.2006 because the charges were not found proved against him; (4) That the petitioner was being promoted for the vacancies falling in the year 1996-97; and (5) Cancellation of the order of promotion dated 29.2.1996; and (6) According seniority to the petitioner in the seniority list dated 17.10.2000 between positions no. 244 and 245; was issued in a gross colourable exercise of power. As a matter of fact, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order was passed fraudulently and with malicious intent and resulted into the petitioner's victimization. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusheswar Nath Pandey (supra) clearly laid down that when time bound promotion was granted to the petitioner therein without there being any fraud or misrepresentation act on the part of the employee, in such circumstances, the decision of the Government to cancel his promotion was unjustified. 16. It may be noted here that by the time the promotion order dated 29.2.1996 was issued, the petitioner had completed 8 years experience on the feeder post and, therefore, his promotion could not be termed illegal and contrary to the Rules. 17. 16. It may be noted here that by the time the promotion order dated 29.2.1996 was issued, the petitioner had completed 8 years experience on the feeder post and, therefore, his promotion could not be termed illegal and contrary to the Rules. 17. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order Annex.P/9 dated 17.4.2006 is declared to be illegal and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord seniority to the petitioner treating him to be promoted vide order Annex. P/16 dated 29.2.1996 in terms of the recommendations of the D.P.C. convened on 30.1.1996 with all consequential benefits. All monetary benefits flowing to the petitioner in view of the above direction shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. and shall be disbursed within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which the interest shall stand enhanced to 9% p.a. 18. In view of the facts noted above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the State Government has tried to cover up its shortcoming by taking totally divergent stands at different stages in this matter. The impugned order Annex. P/9 dated 17.4.2006 is not only grossly arbitrary but also records false facts. By the effect of the said illegal order, the petitioner was deprived of his lawful claim for promotion, seniority and consequential benefits for a long period of time. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents deserved to be saddled with heavy costs which is quantified at Rs.25,000/-. Upon realization, the cost shall be paid to the petitioner. Writ petition allowed.