JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. For the post of Chief Manager, against a vacancy which took place in the year 2000-01, vide order dated 23rd March 2005 the appellant being found more meritorious vis-a-vis respondent No. 2 in the appeal, was promoted. 3. The respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition pleading therein that since the post had to be filled up strictly on the basis of merit, non-consideration of his name by the Departmental Promotion Committee required the order promoting the appellant to be quashed. 4. Vide impugned decision dated 13th November, 2006 the learned Single Judge has noted the minutes of the DPC to hold that the same evince that respondent No. 2 was not considered when the DPC met. The result is the quashing of the order dated 23rd March, 2005 with a direction that the DPC be reconvened. 5. Incidentally the learned Single Judge has also noted the ACR gradings of the appellant as also the respondent No. 2. 6. Since the respondent No. 2 was the writ petitioner and the appellant was respondent No. 2, we quote the ACR recording by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. It reads as under:- "It also reveals from the record that the petitioner received remarks "outstanding" in his ACRs for the year 1997-98, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004, "very good" for the year 1998- 99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2002-2003, whereas the respondent No. 2 received the remark of "outstanding" in the year 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004, "very good" for the year 1997-98, 1999-2000 and 2002-2003 whereas in the year 1998-99 the respondent No. 2 received remarks of "good" only. On face, I do not find any reason to treat the petitioner less meritorious than the respondent No. 2." 7. We have perused the record of the DPC. The same shows that service record of four persons was submitted to the DPC which met on 23rd March, 2005 evident by the preamble statement to the minutes recorded. They read as under:- ^^bl in ij o"kZ 2000&2001 esa ,d in~ fjDr gksus dh fLFkfr esa lfefr ds le{k fopkj.kh; lhek esa 4 vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lsok jsdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;k] ftudk C;kSjk bl izdkj gSA 1 Jh ckcwjke 'kekZ 2 Jh fctykjke pkS/kjh 3 Jh izseflag dPNokg 4 Jh txnh'k dqekj thuxj** 8. They read as under:- ^^bl in ij o"kZ 2000&2001 esa ,d in~ fjDr gksus dh fLFkfr esa lfefr ds le{k fopkj.kh; lhek esa 4 vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lsok jsdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;k] ftudk C;kSjk bl izdkj gSA 1 Jh ckcwjke 'kekZ 2 Jh fctykjke pkS/kjh 3 Jh izseflag dPNokg 4 Jh txnh'k dqekj thuxj** 8. Thereafter it is recorded in the minutes as under:- mijksDr of.kZr dzekad 1 o 2 ds vf/kdkjh lsok fuo`r gks pqds gSa vr% buds ukeksa ij fopkj ugha fd; x;k rFkk dze la0 3 esa of.kZr vf/kdkjh Jh izseflag dPNokg dk fjdkM+Z fu/kZfjr vof/k ds o"kksa dk voyksfdr fd;k ,oa lfefr us ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij inksUufr dh flQkfj'k dh xbZA** 9. From a perusal of the first part of the minutes quoted by us it is clear that service record of four persons was forwarded to the DPC for consideration. 10. The second part of the minutes quoted by us would show that DPC recorded that the persons at serial No. 1 and 2 had superannuated and therefore their candidature was not considered. 11. Whilst it may be true that there is no recording that record of the writ petitioner was considered and that the name of the appellant was being recommended for promotion, but that does not mean that record of the writ petitioner was not considered. That the record was considered is apparent from the fact that in the first part of the minutes it is recorded that service record of all four officers has been perused. The word used in Hindi is ^^voyksdu** which means considered. 12. Thus the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. 13. Pertaining to the ACR of the writ petitioner and the appellant we find that for three years the writ petitioner was graded 'outstanding' but so was the appellant. For the remaining years whereas the writ petitioner had achieved the grading 'very good' the appellant had obtained the grading 'very good' for all but one year in which the appellant was graded 'good'. 14. Now, if service record spanning 6 years is near equal, a weight age to seniority which would have inbuilt element of experience to recommend the name of the senior person as more meritorious cannot be faulted with. 15. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 13th November, 2006 is set aside. 14. Now, if service record spanning 6 years is near equal, a weight age to seniority which would have inbuilt element of experience to recommend the name of the senior person as more meritorious cannot be faulted with. 15. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 13th November, 2006 is set aside. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2901/2005 filed by respondent No. 2 is dismissed. The order promoting the appellant is restored. 16. No costs. Appeal Allowed - Promotion of Appellant Restored.