JUDGMENT : Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. All these three writ petitions arise out of the selection process for the cadre of Indian Police Service from the cadre of State Police Service. So far as petitioner Ajay Kumar is concerned, he having superannuated long back is not interested in pursuing the matter. 2. So far petitioner Arvind Kumar @ Arbind Kumar is concerned, he also superannuated and is dead and there is an affidavit that his litigation would not be pursued. It leaves us with the third writ petition, which is on behalf of Union Public Service Commission (for short UPSC). They are aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna passed in O.A. No. 90/2007 and analogous cases which were disposed of by order dated 21.07.2009. We find, the direction of the Tribunal in nutshell is to the UPSC to consider the complete ACRs of the officers concerned and then take a fresh decision. Having examined the facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere in view of the following facts : 3. Respondent Ramjag Ram, who filed OA No. 90/2007 and is the only surviving contending claimant, though superannuated, was considered for selection by promotion to the cadre of Indian Police Service in the year 2003. Even though he was found fit, he could not get the said promotion in view of the fact that the number of vacancies were filled and he could not make to the select list. The next time when process was undertaken by the UPSC it was in the year 2005. For the year 2005, the relevant years would be 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. UPSC while considering the case of Sri Ramjag Ram found that the ACR of the year 2002-03 and 2003-04, which had now become relevant, were not complete in respect of the said person as sent by the State. He was, thus, not considered fit. When the matter was brought before the Tribunal and upon directions from the Tribunal State produced complete ACRs, the Tribunal in its order dated 05.12.2008 has noted the situation in detail and clearly pointed out that the ACR, as earlier sent by the State for the years 2002-03, 2003-04, were incomplete but what was now produced before it by the State, if read with what was sent earlier, it give the complete picture. The State had wrongly withheld part of ACRs. Ultimately, in the final order virtually based on this anomaly the Tribunal directed UPSC to consider the complete ACRs, as was now available, and pass fresh orders. We are surprised as to how UPSC at all could have been aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal and file the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order. 4. Once before the Tribunal it became clear that for whatever reasons State had only sent part of the ACR, balance also being available but suppressed, once those came out in open UPSC was bound to consider the whole. For the failure of the State to put up the entire ACRs, no person can be made to suffer, otherwise it would be putting a premium on the State action. The order passed by the Tribunal was a just and proper order. In the facts and circumstances, we, therefore, find no merit in this surviving writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. 5. We may note that now it is only a formality that the UPSC has to do. So far as Ramjag Ram is concerned, as submitted by Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel, he is only interested in vindicating his stand that he was wrongly deprived of the position which he was rightful entitled. It is expected that the State Government would fully cooperate in the matter and UPSC would take appropriate decision in respect of Ramjag Ram within a period of four months from today. 6. With the observation aforesaid, all the three writ petitions are disposed of. 7. Let the State forward the complete ACRs to the UPSC for consideration immediately.