JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 as none has appeared for the other respondents despite due notice from this court. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for direction to promote him to the post of LDC with effect from 10.09.2014 with all service benefits. He has also challenged the order of promotion issued by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 under No. F.2 (76/ESTTMS)/2005/3396 (V-1) dated 10.09.2014. The petitioner has stated that the recruitment rules for the post of LD Clerk under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala as published under the notification dated 06.05.2008 provides that 20% of the post of LDC in the said department shall be filled up by promotion in terms of Rule 11 which provides as under : “All categories of Group-D employees under the Health & Family Welfare Department having qualification as prescribed at Rule-7 about 5 (five) years experience in the grade/Government service.” The said Rule 7 provides that someone to be treated as eligible for appointment to the post of LDC must have the qualification of Madhyamik Passed or H/S or its equivalent examination. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the seniority he was in the zone of consideration as he was initially appointed on 17.08.1988 as the General Duty Attendant (GDA) and there is no blemish in all these years of his service, whereas the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed much later, even their name did not figure in the seniority list which was published on 31.03.2001. The petitioner appeared in the Madhyamik examination from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and he passed the said examination in the year 2014. The petitioner appeared in the said examination on obtaining no objection certificate from the authority. On 04.08.2014, the petitioner furnished the testimonials of his passing of the secondary school examination, viz. admit card, provisional certificate, identity card etc. By the order under No. F.2(76/ESTTMS)/2005/3396(V-1) dated 10.09.2014 issued by the respondent No. 2, the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed as LDC against the vacancies earmarked for SC candidates. On 04.08.2014, the petitioner furnished the testimonials of his passing of the secondary school examination, viz. admit card, provisional certificate, identity card etc. By the order under No. F.2(76/ESTTMS)/2005/3396(V-1) dated 10.09.2014 issued by the respondent No. 2, the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed as LDC against the vacancies earmarked for SC candidates. The petitioner does belong to the SC category, but his case was not considered though he was senior to the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. 3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing the reply has contended that when the process started for consideration for promotion to the post of LDC under the Health and Family Welfare Department, the petitioner even did not pass the secondary education and as such his name was not in the process. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding for his remaining unauthorisedly absent and subsequently an order of dies non was passed under order No. F.2(1603)-MS/ESTT-III/88 dated 21.12.2004 [Annexure R/1 to the counter-affidavit]. The respondents No.1 and 2 have however admitted that his certificate of passing the secondary education has been received and sent for verification but no verification report has been received from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), Noida. As the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 passed the secondary education much earlier, their cases were considered and they were given the promotion to the post of LDC by the impugned order dated 10.09.2014 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition]. As such, there is no arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. 4. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that for non consideration, the petitioner cannot be blamed inasmuch as, before the consideration by the DPC which was convened on 19.08.2014, the educational qualification of the petitioner was available with the respondents. If there is any delay for verification, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. The petitioner also by filing a rejoinder has stated that he submitted the testimonials of his passing the secondary education on 04.08.2014, therefore the respondents No. 2 and 3 have arbitrarily excluded the petitioner from consideration and thereby acted in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioner also by filing a rejoinder has stated that he submitted the testimonials of his passing the secondary education on 04.08.2014, therefore the respondents No. 2 and 3 have arbitrarily excluded the petitioner from consideration and thereby acted in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as scrutinized the records as produced with the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, this court finds that there was a dislocation in placing records to the DPC in respect of the petitioner which was available since 19.08.2014. For the reason as assigned the educational qualification of the petitioner either could not be entered in the service book or could not be placed in the DPC. Having due regard to the seniority position of the petitioner, it can be said that the said action has generated a serious deprivation for the petitioner and hence this court is of the view that the respondents No.1 and 2 shall consider promotion of the petitioner with effect from 10.09.2014 when the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed in the post of LDC in the Health and Family Welfare Department by the order dated 10.09.2014 [Annexure 5 to the writ petition] on receipt of the verification report as stated, but the order after such consideration shall be passed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date when the copy of this order be furnished to the respondent No.2. It is further made clear that the pay and allowances of the petitioner in the promotional post shall be fixed notionally with effect from 10.09.2014 till the date when the petitioner shall be appointed by the respondent No.2 in the post of the LDC. However, the pay of the petitioner on the date of his appointment in the post of the LDC be fixed taking the evolution of the pay and allowances by way of notional fixation. 6. Having observed thus, the writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.