AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner had earlier moved this Court by filing writ application being CWJC No. 1264 of 1996 (R) for quashing the order dated 24.7.1995, by which the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Store Keeper to the post of Store Keeper was denied by the respondents on the ground that the departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 8.9.1997 dismissed the said writ application filed by the petitioner, after taking into consideration the fact that the stand of the respondents was that after completion of the departmental proceeding the case for promotion of the petitioner will be considered and it was also directed in the said order to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings as quickly as possible and then to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the basis of the sealed cover policy.
(2.) IT is stated that subsequently the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him in the said departmental proceeding vide letter dated 19/20 -12 -1997. It is further stated that the during the pendency of the aforesaid departmental proceeding a second chargesheet was issued for different charges to the petitioner on 4.2.1995 for which second departmental proceeding was conducted and vide office order dated 25.2.2000 the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The case of the petitioner in the present writ application is that he has illegally been denied promotion to the post of Store Keeper though other persons junior to him have been promoted to the said post.
(3.) THE stand of the respondents as would appear from their counter affidavit is that in the Departmental promotion Committee meeting held on 21.12.1992 the name of the petitioner was placed at the bottom of the panel by the Committee as the petitioner had only secured 28 points and therefore, he was denied promotion and it is not correct to say that the case of the petitioner for promotion for promotion to the post of Store Keeper was not considered rather the case of the petitioner for the promotion was considered and he was not found fit to be promoted.;