A question involving the relevant date that has to be taken, in assessing the eligibility of a person aspiring for promotion to the selection post, in the context of Note to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of part II of KS and SSR (hereinafter Rules) and in the context of a possible vigilance case against the aspirants for promotion arises for consideration in this case. A detailed discussion has been undertaken in this case in circumstances where a distinction was sought to be drawn between criminal cases where FIR is registered against the Government servant involving offences under the Penal Code before the Courts of General Criminal jurisdiction and cases under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act taken cognizance of by a Vigilance Court.

2. I heard in detail learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. N.Sugathan and the senior Government Pleader Mr. P. Nandakumar on this aspect.

3. The petitioner joined service as an Excise Preventive Officer in the year 1998 and was promoted in the year 2003 as an Assistant Excise Inspector. He was included in Ext.P1 final seniority list of Assistant Excise Inspectors. Promotion there from is to the post of Excise Inspector which though is a non gazetted post is nevertheless a selection post. The petitioner became fully qualified and eligible to be considered as Excise Inspector in July, 2005. It is the petitioners case that there were no adverse remarks in his CR and his Reviewing Officer apparently reported that he is a loyal and obedient officer fit for promotion. This assertion does not seem to be specifically controverted.

4. TheVigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau conducted a surprise check in the Excise Division Office, Thrissur. A body check was conducted on all the employees who were present in the office. The table and the almirah in the office were subjected to search. Apparently amounts in excess of declared as cash were recovered from some of the officers working there. Ext.P2 FIR was registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau on 30.5.2003 before the Vigilance court against the petitioner and five others. The petitioner and other officers were suspended from service vide order dated 28.6.2003. The petitioner sought for revocation of his suspension. Ultimately, he moved this court as WPC.No.16495/2004 which was disposed of recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that investigation has been completed and the petitioner can be reinstated in service. Accordingly the petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to order dated 7.2004.

.5. The petitioner aspired for promotion to the post of Excise Inspector. Since his claim was not considered, he moved WPC.No.26904/2004 for a direction to the DPC to consider his claim for promotion. An interim order was passed by this court on 19.2004 requiring the DPC to provisionally consider the petitioners case. The petitioner was not included in Ext.P3 select list published pursuant to the DPC meeting held on 312.2004, apparently for the reason that his probation had not been declared in the cadre of Assistant Excise Inspector, when the DPC had met the petitioners request for declaration of his probation was not accepted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. When he moved this court seeking a direction in this regard, Ext.P4 order was passed requiring the Excise Commissioner to take a decision on the petitioners request for declaration of his probation. Thereafter by Ext.P5 order dated 28.2005 the petitioners probation was declared with effect from 8.7.2005. On the same day, by Ext.P6 order, 9 persons included in Ext.P3 select list were promoted as Excise Inspectors, 7 out of them were juniors to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 objection thereto. While so, WPC.No.26904/2004 preferred by him earlier was disposed of vide Ext.P8 judgment requiring the respondent to convene an adhoc or review DPC and reconsider the case of the petitioner taking into account the order by which his probatio