ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against orders dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure P/5), 09.03.2015 (Annexure P/7) by which Public Service Commission has not given concurrence for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion against the vacant post of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. 2. The brief facts are reflected from record are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Engineer on 14.06.1990 and as per the seniority list as on 01.04.2010, he was at serial No. 6 of the gradation list. It has been further contended that Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, Mahesh Prasad Awadhiya and Jugender Lal have already promoted on the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture Engineering and only J. Kerketta member SC and one B.K. Mishra/respondent No. 6 are available in the cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture Engineering. 3. It has been further contended that DPC for promotion on the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture Engineering was held on 05.06.2014 wherein the name of respondent No. 6 has been considered for promotion against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe as candidate namely Jankrus Kerketta was found unfit by the DPC for promotion whereas respondent No. 6 and the present petitioner were found fit. Respondent No. 6 was given promotion against the post reserved for scheduled tribe category whereas the name of the petitioner was kept in abeyance as ACR of the petitioner for the year 2011-12, 2012-13 was not available with the department. Subsequently, on 19.11.2014, the ACR of the petitioner was available before PSC and PSC vide its impugned memo dated 22.12.2014 has held that the petitioner’s case cannot be considered against the reserved posts, therefore, no view DPC is required even if his ACR is available. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the PSC has committed illegality in not considering case of the petitioner as per Chhattisgarh Promotion Rules, 2003 which have been amended on 16.11.2007 and following amendment were brought on record, which reads as under: “1. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the PSC has committed illegality in not considering case of the petitioner as per Chhattisgarh Promotion Rules, 2003 which have been amended on 16.11.2007 and following amendment were brought on record, which reads as under: “1. After the sub-rule (15) of rule 6, the following sub-rule shall be inserted: “(16) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 6, if no public servant of the category for which post or point in the roster is reserved, is available and according to the seniority and criteria adopted for promotion a public servant of unreserved/general category or a public servant of other reserved category is available and fit for promotion, and no public servant from the category for which the post or point in the roster is reserved, is going to be available in the feeder cadre/post before the date of retirement of such public servant of unreserved/general or of other reserved category who is available and fit for promotion, such available public servant shall be promoted.” 2. After the sub-rule (17) of rule 7, the following proviso shall be inserted: “(18) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7, if no public servant of the category for which post of point in the roster is reserved is available and according to the criteria adopted for promotion, a public servant of unreserved/general category or a public servant of other reserved category is available and fit for promotion and no public servant from the category for which the post or point in the roster is reserved, is going to be available in the feeder cadre/post before the date of retirement of such public servant of unreserved/general or of other reserved category who is available for promotion, such available public servant shall be promoted.” 5. During pendency of the petition, the petitioner has submitted representation to the respondents which has been rejected by the respondents vide its order dated 30.12.2007. The said rejection order was also assailed by the petitioner by way of amendment. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the PSC should have considered the amendment made in the Promotion Rule, 2003 and should have constituted the review DPC for promotion. Thus, he would pray for quashing the memo dated 22.12.2014, 09.03.2015 and order dated 30.12.2017. 7. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the PSC should have considered the amendment made in the Promotion Rule, 2003 and should have constituted the review DPC for promotion. Thus, he would pray for quashing the memo dated 22.12.2014, 09.03.2015 and order dated 30.12.2017. 7. Learned counsel for the CGPSC would submit that since Jankrus Kerketta has not been granted promotion and respondent No. 6 has already been granted promotion against the reserved posts, therefore, case of the petitioner cannot be considered. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that since one candidate of General category has already been granted promotion against scheduled caste post, therefore, declining the promotion of the petitioner is legal and justify and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 9. From record, it is quite vivid that the earlier DPC has not considered case of the petitioner as ACR for the year 2011-12 2012-13 was not available, therefore, the case of the petitioner was not considered and thereafter by taking different view, the case of the petitioner has not been considered on the pretext that the petitioner cannot be given promotion as it was reserved for SC candidate. The State has amended the Promotion Rule, 2003 on 16.11.2007 wherein it has been brought on record that if no public servant of the category for which posts or point in the roster is reserved, is available and according to the criteria adopted for promotion, a public servant of unreserved/general category or a public servant of other reserved category, is available and fit for promotion and no public servant from the category from which the posts or point for roster is reserved, is going to be available in the feeder cadre/posts before the date of retirement of such public servant of unreserved/general or of other reserved category, who is available for promotion, such public servant shall be promoted. This rule clarifies that in case of candidate of reserved category is not available as per the time period provided in the rule then the case of general category can be considered. 10. From the return of the respondent, it does not reflect that any such exercise has been carried out either by the PSC or by the State. This rule clarifies that in case of candidate of reserved category is not available as per the time period provided in the rule then the case of general category can be considered. 10. From the return of the respondent, it does not reflect that any such exercise has been carried out either by the PSC or by the State. From the minutes of DPC, it is evident that respondent No. 6 was promoted against the post which was reserved for SC, but the post which was reserved for ST was not filled up as the candidate was found unfit. As such, the memo dated 22.12.2014, 09.03.2015 & order dated 30.12.2017 are without application of mind, without consideration of the rules made in the Promotion Rule, 2003 on 16.11.2007, thus, they deserve to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. 11. The respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner and other candidates of OBC category available on the date of meeting of earlier DPC which was held on 05.06.2014 in terms of amendment made in Promotion Rule, 2003 on 16.11.2007 within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is further directed that the respondents should examine the matter, strictly in accordance with the rules. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition is allowed.