D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondent Nos. 5 to 10.
(2.) PERMISSION as prayed for to delete of the name of the respondent Nos. 5 to 10, is granted, because they are not necessary party. Present petition has been preferred for getting correct notional date of promotion on post of Inspector. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly submitted that in violation of law, promotion of the petitioner has been denied in the year 1997 on the post of Inspector from the post of Sub -Inspector.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner vehemently submitted that initially when the matter was taken up in the year 1997 for promotion on the posts of Inspector, the cases of all the Sub -Inspectors who were junior and senior to petitioner were considered by the concerned respondent authority and they have been promoted in the year 1997 on the post of Inspectors, but the case of the petitioner was not considered only for the reason that the service records of the petitioner was not available with the concerned respondent authority and for no fault of petitioner, the case of the petitioner was considered subsequently and the petitioner was promoted on the post of Inspector with effect from 24th June, 1999 and, therefore, the petitioner lost his seniority by two years and other juniors of petitioner who were Sub -Inspector, have become senior to the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has now been already decided by the order to this Court dated 10th July, 2008 in W. P. (S) No. 3106 of 2008, which is at Annexure -10 to the memo of the present petition in similarly situated another case. In that case also, the service records of that petitioner was not available and therefore, direction was given to the effect that the case of petitioner ought to be considered and promotion should be given with effect from the date from which cases of the petitioners and others were considered initially.;