1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. For the post of Chief Manager, against a vacancy which took place in the year 2000-01, vide order dated 23rd March 2005 the appellant being found more meritorious vis-a-vis respondent No. 2 in the appeal, was promoted.

3. The respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition pleading therein that since the post had to be filled up strictly on the basis of merit, non-consideration of his name by the Departmental Promotion Committee required the order promoting the appellant to be quashed.

4. Vide impugned decision dated 13th November, 2006 the learned Single Judge has noted the minutes of the DPC to hold that the same evince that respondent No. 2 was not considered when the DPC met. The result is the quashing of the order dated 23rd March, 2005 with a direction that the DPC be reconvened.

5. Incidentally the learned Single Judge has also noted the ACR gradings of the appellant as also the respondent No. 2.

6. Since the respondent No. 2 was the writ petitioner and the appellant was respondent No. 2, we quote the ACR recording by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. It reads as under:-

"It also reveals from the record that the petitione