ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents in not granting promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector despite the fact that minor punishment imposed upon the petitioner in a departmental revision proceeding has been removed and further they forced the petitioner to participate in the promotional process which was to be commenced from 17.08.2014. 2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed in Chhattisgarh Security Force as a Constable on 13.10.1998. Thereafter, in due course of time, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 11.09.2002. In furtherance to the above, the petitioner became entitled for next promotion that is to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander/Sub-Inspector. Accordingly, the petitioner was called for physical examination in connection with such promotional process on 09.07.2008 which he clarified successfully. Subsequently, the petitioner along with other selected candidates was called for written examination on 28.08.2008. As per result dated 06.06.2009 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner successfully cleared the written examination and he was selected for Pre Promotion Course (for short P.P. Course) and after completion of which he was to be granted promotion. Despite the aforesaid result, the petitioner was not sent for P.P. Course necessary for his promotion, whereas other selected candidates including his juniors after undergoing such course were granted promotion to next higher post. However, on making much effort for being known about the reason as to why he was not sent for the P.P. Course, the petitioner was orally informed that on account of pending departmental enquiry, he was not being sent for the course concerned. 3. Earlier, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 16.04.2008 for some alleged act of misconduct for which an FIR was also lodged at Police Station Dhamtari under sections 294, 323, 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, after trial, the proceeding was culminated into acquittal of the petitioner vide order dated 18.09.2008 (Annexure P/2). For the same alleged misconduct, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 09.07.2008 (Annexure P/3), a minor punishment of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, was imposed upon the petitioner. For the same alleged misconduct, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 09.07.2008 (Annexure P/3), a minor punishment of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, was imposed upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said punishment order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the competent authority and the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2009 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal before the respondents and the same was allowed vide order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure P/5) cancelling the order of punishment dated 09.07.2008. Earlier on 07.10.2009, petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 5881/2009, seeking interference of this Court in the matter of his promotion on the ground that the minor punishment does not come in the way of promotion. However, during pendency of the said petition earlier his departmental appeal was dismissed, but subsequently his Second Appeal was allowed in full as explained above. As a result of the order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure P/5), the order of punishment and its affirmation in departmental appeal lost its value in the eyes of law and the stand of the respondents in the reply filed in such petition that because of the imposition of minor punishment the petitioner's case could not be considered for promotion lost its sanctity completely. As a consequence, the petitioner became entitled for all the benefits. This Court vide order dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P/6) disposed of the petition i.e. WPS No. 5881/2009 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of four months. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 06.05.2014, petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.05.2014 (Annexure P/7) before the competent authority and sought for an appropriate direction in the matter. Inspite of deciding the representation of the petitioner, respondents asked the petitioner over phone to appear in the fresh promotion process which was to be commenced on 17.08.2014 by conducting physical test under the Chhatisgarh Head Quarters, Bhilai. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:- 10.1. Inspite of deciding the representation of the petitioner, respondents asked the petitioner over phone to appear in the fresh promotion process which was to be commenced on 17.08.2014 by conducting physical test under the Chhatisgarh Head Quarters, Bhilai. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:- 10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and ask the respondents not to force the petitioner to undergo the process of promotion for promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander afresh in view of his already passing through the same successfully in 2009. 10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander from the date his immediate junior has been granted with such promotion, in view of the petitioner’s already passing through the process of promotion successfully in 2009 and cancellation of the minor punishment in the meanwhile, by competent authority resulting into his exoneration in full. 10.3. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits as a result of such promotion from the year 2009. 10.3. Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are absolutely unjustified in calling upon the petitioner to appear in the promotion process for promotion from the post of Head Constable to Inspector/Platoon Commander to Assistant Sub- having commenced from 17.08.2014, when he has already passed the same in 2009 itself. In view of the minor punishment imposed upon the petitioner having already cancelled by competent authority there remains no reason for not considering petitioner's case for promotion, as effect of such cancellation would be as if no such punishment was ever imposed upon the petitioner. In view of the circular dated 27.08.1992 a person having clarified the test for promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector is not required to under the same process again. In view of the circular dated 27.08.1992 a person having clarified the test for promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector is not required to under the same process again. Pursuant to this Court’s order dated 06.05.2014 in WP(S) 5881/2009 the only course of action left with the respondents was to consider his case for promotion, but they are acting with ulterior motive in order to restrict the petitioner from being promoted to next higher post. The action on part of the respondents of forcing the petitioner to undergo the process of promotion afresh is causing undue harassment to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to grant promotion in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits since 2009. 5. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s order dated 20.07.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1944 of 2011 in the case of Vishnu Prasad Ghatpandey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner passed the exam held for promotion in 2009 but due to minor punishment dated 09.07.2008 (Annexure P/3) imposed upon the petitioner, he was not promoted. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the departmental appeal before the competent authority and the same was dismissed by order dated 01.12.2009 (Annexure P/4). Subsequently, the petitioner preferred the second appeal which was allowed vide order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure P/5) cancelling the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred the petition i.e. W.P.(S) No. 5881/2009 for considering his case for promotion for the post of Assistant Platoon Commander and vide order dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P/6), the said petition was disposed of with certain directions. In compliance of the said order dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P/6), the petitioner submitted fresh representation before the competent authority who asked the petitioner to appear in the fresh promotion process which was to be commenced from 17.08.2014 by conducting physical test under the Chhattisgarh Head Quarters, Bhilai. In compliance of the said order dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P/6), the petitioner submitted fresh representation before the competent authority who asked the petitioner to appear in the fresh promotion process which was to be commenced from 17.08.2014 by conducting physical test under the Chhattisgarh Head Quarters, Bhilai. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Platoon Commander and the said promotion is governed by the provisions of SOP 75/97 (Annexure R-1) and as per Clause (c) (6) of the para, which deals with promotions of Head Constables to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander specifically provides that the select list will be valid until new select list is prepared or up till 18 months whichever earlier. By the time, the punishment was cancelled vide order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure P/5), the validity of the select list has already expired and thus in compliance of this Court’s order dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P/6), the departmental promotion committee was constituted. The case of the petitioner was considered and it was decided that he would be given an opportunity for promotion in the next promotional process for the post of Assistant Platoon Commander. Copy of the note-sheet dated 28.06.2014 is annexed as Annexure R-2. The decision was taken to constitute the promotion process in July, 2014. Copy of the note-sheet dated 02.07.2014 is annexed as Annexure R-3. Vide order dated 02.07.2014, the Addl. Director General of Police directed for initiation of recruitment process for the post of Assistant Platoon Commander from the post of Head Constable and the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure R-4. The petitioner was asked to appear in the promotion process which was initiated as per order dated 02.07.2014 [Annexure R-4] but the petitioner chose not to appear in the said promotion process and approached this Court. The promotion of the petitioner was not possible due to expiry of select list. Thus, there is no illegality on the part of the answering respondents/State in directing the petitioner to appear in the promotion process. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in respondent department on 13.10.1998 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 11.09.2002. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in respondent department on 13.10.1998 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 11.09.2002. It is also not disputed that in next promotion to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander/ Sub Inspector, the petitioner took part in promotion process which he cleared successfully and his name was published in select list on 06.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) and due to some minor punishment, he was not promoted. Petitioner filed appeal against punishment which was imposed upon him and in the said appeal, he was exonerated by the appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed petition before this Court which was disposed of with certain directions vide order dated 06.05.2014. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 06.05.2014, the petitioner submitted his representation and in pursuance of which, the respondent authority asked the petitioner to again appear in the selection process. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents objected that as per the provision of SOP 75/97 and as per Clause (c) (6), the select list will be valid until new select list is prepared or up till 18 months whichever is earlier. As per respondents, select list has expired, therefore, they directed the petitioner to again appear in selection process. 10. Operative para of this Court’s order dated 06.05.2014 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5881 of 2009 held as under:- “In view of above, the petition stands disposed of. If the petitioner files fresh representation along with copy of petition before the competent authority of the respondents, then the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law on its own merits, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of representation. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. 11. As per Annexure R/2 dated 28.06.2014, the case of the petitioner was considered and it was recommended that, vkxkeh Á-vkj- ls lgk;d IykVwu dek.Mj inksUufr ÁfØ;k viuk;s tkus ij mDr Á-vkj- dks fu;ekuqlkj ik=rk gksus ij ik=rk gksus ij lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxkA 12. 11. As per Annexure R/2 dated 28.06.2014, the case of the petitioner was considered and it was recommended that, vkxkeh Á-vkj- ls lgk;d IykVwu dek.Mj inksUufr ÁfØ;k viuk;s tkus ij mDr Á-vkj- dks fu;ekuqlkj ik=rk gksus ij ik=rk gksus ij lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxkA 12. This Court in the matter of Vishnu Prasad Ghatpandey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in W.P.(S) No. 1944 of 2011 vide order dated 20.07.2017 observed and held in operative para as under:- Once the petitioner has been fully exonerated he is entitled to be considered by a review DPC as on the date when his junior were considered and promoted vide order dated 11.5.2010. Though it has not been very clearly stated in the return of the respondent, presumably, the petitioner must have been considered and recommendation must have been kept in sealed cover for being opened upon conclusion of departmental enquiry. Upon consideration of petitioner's case for review DPC, if the petitioner is found fit, on the basis of his service records, in the review DPC, he would be entitled to appropriate order of promotion from the date his junior was promoted along with all consequential benefits. 13. Thus, in the present case also, it is clear that the petitioner successfully cleared the selection process and was selected but due to minor punishment, he was not promoted at that time. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has been fully exonerated by the appellate authority and in light of above mentioned order, when the petitioner has been fully exonerated, he is entitled to be considered by review DPC as on the date when his juniors were considered and promoted. 14. In view of aforesaid discussion, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions referred hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to grant promotion to the petitioner from back date when other selected candidates were promoted as per select list dated 06.06.2009, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. There shall be no order as to costs.