JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to modify the Office Order issued vide memo No. JKG/OC/DPC/Promotion/38/47 dated 17/30.03.2016 under the signature of respondent No. 6 and to make it effective w.e.f. 01.11.2012 and to grant consequential benefits of such promotion, both seniority and monetary within a specified period. Further prayer has been made to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date juniors to him have been granted promotions. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ application is that the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the matriculation certificate is 18.01.1960. The petitioner was granted promotions firstly to the post of Clerk Grade-III and secondly, on the post of Upper Division Clerk in the year 1987 and 2000 respectively. His case for promotion to the post of Sr. Clerk (Spl. Grade) fell due on 01.11.2012, as the juniors to him were promoted on that date. It is the case of the petitioner that his date of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate is 18.01.1960. However, erroneously it was recorded in his service book as 28.06.1960. Having come to know about the wrong entry in his service book, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent No. 4 on 30.09.2010 along with a copy of matriculation certificate requesting him to make necessary correction with regard to his date of birth in terms of matriculation certificate. 4. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 28.09.2010 asking explanation regarding such anomaly in respect of date of birth of the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner submitted his explanation before the respondents that he passed matriculation in the year 1977 and his date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is 18.01.1960. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he submitted his matriculation certificate at the time of his appointment but still wrong date of birth was entered in his service book on the basis of medical report and therefore, he requested the respondent No. 4 to correct the same. 5. It is further stated that vide memo No. 162 dated 01.11.2012, the respondent No. 4 issued provisional promotion order to the post of Sr. Clerk (Spl. Grade) from the post of Sr. 5. It is further stated that vide memo No. 162 dated 01.11.2012, the respondent No. 4 issued provisional promotion order to the post of Sr. Clerk (Spl. Grade) from the post of Sr. Division Clerk in respect of as many as 10 employees including the juniors to the petitioner without considering the case of the petitioner. When the case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground of date of birth, the petitioner was compelled to move before this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 366 of 2014. This Hon’ble Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, was of the view that the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner for promotion based upon his enhanced qualification, however, on being satisfied about authenticity from the source concerned within a reasonable time, preferably within 16 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 6. However, when the petitioner approached the respondents with a copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Court, respondent-authorities issued an order dated 27/30.06.2016 (Annexure-5). Though the respondents considered the case of the petitioner, it was observed that the promotion will be made effective from the date the petitioner will assume the charge of higher post. However, it was mentioned that his inter-se seniority will remain in the same order as in the approved panel irrespective of the date of joining in the promoted post. Being aggrieved by the said consideration, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 7. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that on the earlier occasion also the same issue was raised before this Court and now in the present writ petition, again the same issue has been raised. Learned counsel submits that petitioner concedes to the contention of the respondents that petitioner would not seek correction of date of birth based upon his matriculation certificate. However, he insists that his enhanced qualification should be considered in the matter of promotion. In the previous writ petition also the respondents had not replied to the contention of the petitioner and today also the respondents are silent over this contention. Rather, it is the submission of the respondents that it is only because of the wrong entry of the date of birth in the service excerpts, the case for promotion was not considered. 8. Rather, it is the submission of the respondents that it is only because of the wrong entry of the date of birth in the service excerpts, the case for promotion was not considered. 8. Learned counsel further submits that though promotion has been granted to the petitioner but it ought to have been granted from the date juniors to him were granted as has been held earlier by this Hon’ble in the previous writ petition to grant promotion, if there is no any other legal impediment. Now again, the same view has been reiterated and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner from the date juniors to him have been considered for promotion and accordingly, the promotion order dated 30.03.2016 be modified to that extent. 9. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that as there is dispute regarding date of birth, the promotion from the date juniors to him have been considered were not granted to the petitioner. As such, there is no illegality in the promotion order of the petitioner. 10. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that respondents should consider the case of the petitioner for giving promotion from the date juniors have been considered and granted promotion w.e.f. 01.11.2012 (Annexure-9). From perusal of Annexure-8, which is a revised seniority list, it is apparent that the persons whose names appear at Sl. No. 26 to 30 are juniors to the petitioner. From perusal of Annexure-9, it appears that juniors to the petitioner whose names appear at Sl. No. 7 to 10, have been considered and granted promotion w.e.f. 01.11.2012. The respondent-CCL has no reply to the said contention of the learned counsel that as to why juniors have been considered for promotion w.e.f. 01.11.2012 and the petitioner’s promotion has been denied. The reply of the respondents is regarding wrong entry in the date of birth, which was earlier considered in W.P.(S) No. 366 of 2014, preferred earlier before this Hon’ble Court by the petitioner. Inspite of the order of this Court, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner from the date juniors have been considered. 11. The reply of the respondents is regarding wrong entry in the date of birth, which was earlier considered in W.P.(S) No. 366 of 2014, preferred earlier before this Hon’ble Court by the petitioner. Inspite of the order of this Court, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner from the date juniors have been considered. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, legal propositions, as there was already an order of this Court passed in W.P.(S). No. 366 of 2014 dated 11.08.2015 to consider the case of the petitioner, without going into the wrong entry in the date of birth, the respondents are directed to modify the promotion order issued on 17/30.03.2016 to the extent that same will be made effective from 01.11.2012, the date juniors to the petitioners have been considered and granted promotion. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.