1. - Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Brij Pal Singh with prayer that respondents be directed to consider his c idature for promotion to the post of Assistant Director and that he may not be adjudged unsuitable for promotion on the basis of order dated 14.12.1995. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the validity of penalty order dated 14.12.1995 by which recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,732.68p. has been ordered to be made from him and the order dated 09.10.1998 by which his appeal filed against that penalty order was rejected taking it as time barred.Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that petitioner and one Ram Lal Bissu both were proceeded against in disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 6 of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1974. While charge-sheet was served on petitioner on 03.05.1994 under Regulation 6 (Supra) on allegation that while he was working as Manager (Warehouse) at Suratgarh in April, 1992, shortage of 2.5% of stock amounting to Rs. 3,732.68p. was found therein, whereas, as per instructions of the Food Corporation of India, shortage of 0.75% is permissible in storage of such stock for a period of one year. Similar charge-sheet was also issued to said Shri Ram Lal Bissu with respect to Suratgarh itself for the same period. Both of them were required to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 14,030.70p. be not recovered from them, because this much amount was deducted by Food Corporation of India from the warehousing charges payable to respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that Ram Pal Bissu filed appeal against the order of penalty. The final order was passed in the case of petitioner as well as Ram Lal Bissu on 14.12.1995 by which 50% of the amount of loss was proposed to be written-off and the matter for that purpose was referred to the write-off committee whereas remaining 50% was ordered to be recovered from both the delinquents in equal proportion.

3. Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that said Shri Ram Pal Bissu filed appeal against the order of penalty. His appeal was allowed by order dated 20.09.1997. Ram Lal Bissu was considered for promotion and was promoted by a subsequent order. Petitioner however was superseded by as many as six of his juniors vide order dated 05.09.1997, herein private respondents No.2 to 6, who were promoted to the post of Assistant Director. When the petitioner filed appeal on 23.07.1997, his appeal was rejected being time barred. It is argued that the post of Assistant Director being non-selection post, it would be covered under Clause-B (ii) of Part II of Regulation 7 of the Regulations. Criteria for promotion to such post is defined to be seniority subject to rejection of unfit. The learned counsel submitted that recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,732.68p. is only a minor penalty and the respondents themselves proceeded against him under Regulation 6 of the Regulations, which contains the procedure of imposing minor penalties, and for that reason alone the petitioner could not be adjudged unsuitable for promotion. Besides, there was no justification for appellate authority to reject the appeal of petitioner because in any case it was filed within three days of decision of the appeal filed by Ram Lal Bissu and when the appeal of Ram Lal Bissu was allowed, rejection of appeal filed by petitioner treating it to be time barred was a very harsh and unreasonable having civil consequence for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had considered the entire record of petitioner and it was on its recommendations that promotions were granted to private respondents. If the DPC did not adjudge the petitioner fit for promotion, no exception can be taken thereto. Learned counsel submitted that so long