even before they wore so communicated, they were tpken into consideration by the. Departmental Promotion Committee on August 22, 1969 in assessing the respective merit of the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 and preparing the panel in the order of merit. Therefore, it cannot but be slid that the said assessment, gradaticn and preparation of the panel were vitiated as being in contravention of principles of fairplay and natural justice.

( 24 ) IN answer to the above, Mr. Frank Anthony, learned Counsel for respondents I to 4, 6 and 8, as well as Mr. Anand (respondent 7) who appeared in person, contended firstly that the gradation was made and the panel was prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee on September 22, 1969 and the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner on October 13, 1969, and that the writ petition filed by the petitioner on July 13, 1972 was very much belated and should be rejected on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. There is no force in this contention. It is true that the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner on October 13, 1969. But, the various subsequent events which have been set out in the course o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document