JUDGMENT The appellant, who is a Constable in the state police, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus for being considered on the promotional post of Inspector. 2. It appears from the record that a Selection Committee constituted by the Police Recruitment and Promotion Board held meetings between 5 February 2014 and 15 February 2014. At that stage, there was an adverse entry in the service record of the appellant which was recorded in the year 2012. The appellant had filed an appeal against the adverse entry which was allowed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur on 24 April 2014 and the adverse entry was set aside. The appellant was informed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur on 1 August 2014 that since the adverse entry held the field at the time when the Selection Committee had met to consider the candidature of the appellant, he could not be promoted but his case would be considered at the next meeting of the Committee. The appellant filed a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 7 January 2016 was not of the appellant but of his spouse. The learned Single Judge took a rather strict view of this development by holding that the appellant had allowed his spouse to interact with his superior officer and to bring pressure upon him, which is an act of misconduct under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. 3. We are of the view that while the submission of a representation not by the appellant but by his spouse was not in order, the learned Single Judge has taken a rather harsh view in dismissing the writ petition. As the communication of the Senior Superintendent of Police dated 1 August 2014 indicates, the case of the appellant for promotion was not allowed on the ground that there was an adverse entry which held the field at the material time. Since the adverse entry was set aside in an appeal by the competent authority, all that remains to be observed is that the case of the appellant for promotion may be considered in accordance with law. The special appeal would accordingly have to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 3 February 2016. 4. The special appeal would accordingly have to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 3 February 2016. 4. We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 3 February 2016. Instead and in place, the writ petition filed by the appellant shall stand disposed of by directing that the claim of the appellant for promotion shall be duly considered in accordance with law. The special appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.