P.K. Mohanti, J. - (1.)PETITIONER was originally appointed as an Invigilator in the National Sample Survey Organisation. Government of India, Ministry of Finance with effect from 14 -11 -1950. He was promoted to the post of Inspector with effect from 19 -10 -1953. He was further promoted on 22 -7 -1958 to the post of Scrutiny Inspector which was subsequently re -designated as Assistant Superintendent with effect from 20 -11 -1962. He was appointed substantively as Assistant Superintendent with effect from 31 -7 -1967. The next promotional post above that of Assistant Superintendent is the post of Superintendent, the appointment to which is made by selection. As per the Recruitment Rules (Annexure B) ten per cent of the vacancies are filled by direct recruitment and the balance of ninety per cent by promotion from the posts of Assistant Superintendents. A seniority list of Assistant Superintendents was, published on 22 -1 -1964 in which the Petitioner's name finds place at serial No. 86 and opposite parties 3 to 28 are shown below the Petitioner. In supersession of the claim of the Petitioner, opposite parties 3 and 4 were promoted to the rank of Superintendent with effect from 11 -12 -1973. A representation made by the Petitioner was rejected on 7 -2 -1974. Opposite parties 5 to 7 were promoted as Superintendents on 6 -7 -1974. Opposite parties 8 to 28 were promoted to the said rank on 9 -7 -1974.
The Petitioner's contention is that his case for promotion to the rank of Superintendent was not considered at all although he was at the time the vacancies arose eligible for the same. In this writ petition the Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus or certiorari quashing the promotions of opposite parties 7 to 28 and directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to consider the Petitioner's case for promotion with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted. It has also been prayed that opposite parties 1 and 2 be directed to communicate to the Petitioner the adverse remarks, if any recorded in his confidential character roll and to give him an opportunity to submit a representation for expunging the same.

(2.)OPPOSITE parties 1 and 2 are the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Planning Department, Government of India and the Director of National Sample Survey Organisation respectively. They filed a joint counter contending that the case of the Petitioner was duly considered by the. Departmental Promotion Committee when opposite parties 3 to 23 were promoted. On all the occasions as officers with better record of service were available the Petitioner's name could not be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendent. It is admitted by them that opposite parties 3 to 23 were juniors to the Petitioner and that there was no adverse remark or adverse circumstance against the Petitioner.
On 22 -12 -1975 the Petitioner asked for a direction to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to produce the records of the Departmental Promotion Committee in which decisions were taken to promote opposite parties 3 to 28 on 11 -12 -1973, 6 -7 -1974 and 9 -7 -1974.

(3.)AN affidavit sworn by Shri S.C. Chaudhuri, Additional Secretary, Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning was filed in reply to the Petitioner's prayer for production of documents. It is stated therein that the records of the Departmental Promotion Committee are in the nature of unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State and that their disclosure would materially affect freedom and candor of expression in determination of public policy. It is also stated that maintenance of secrecy of these documents is essential for ensuring the proper functioning of public services. On these grounds, privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act was claimed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. The Bench hearing the writ petition at that time disallowed the claim of privilege by a short order dated 7 -4 -1976 and directed production of the records. In our opinion, the claim of privilege was rightly disallowed.