- (1.) V. M. Sahai, J. The petitioner was appointed as constable in the State police. He was promoted as head constable. By- order dated 22-4-93 he has been compulsorily retired. The order of compulsory retirement is annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired without his claim being considered by the screening com mittee under the Government order dated 6-2-89.
(2.) STANDING Counsel was allowed lime to file counter-affidavit from time to lime and on 19-4-99 this Court allowed three months and more time to STANDING Counsel for filing counter-affidavit. In-spite of stop order no counter-affidavit has been filed by the STANDING Counsel. Heard Shri H. K. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner and Miss Amakshi Sharma learned Standing Coun sel. Since no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents the asser tions made in the writ petition by the petitioner has to be accepted as correct.
(3.) THE Apex Court in the case of Bir Singh Chauhan v. State of Haryana and others, 1997 (2) SCC (Labour and Service) 1447, has held as under: "we wanted to examine the record to as certain Whether there is any substantial case against the appellant. THE respondents have neither filed counter not produced the record. Under these circumstances we are constrained to accpet the case of the appellant that he is entitled to be considered for promotion under the Rules. We direct the Government to con sider his case for promotion on the basis of his service record within four months from the receipt of this order. While doing so the Govern ment will exclude the material relating to his inspection report. " A Division Bench of this Court in Mis. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Collector, Kanpur and others, 1999 (82) FLR 709, has held as under:- "in the absence of counter-affidavit, the Court is left with no choice but to accept the averments made in the petition to be correct. ";