DEV DARSHAN SUD, J.

1. THE petitioner challenges the order dated 5th May, 1999 (Annexure P 6) whereby 4th and 5th respondents have been promoted to the post of Labour Inspector and order dated 4.2.2008 (Annexure P 8) rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

2. AT the outset I note that one of the grounds which has been urged for setting aside the appointment is that the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which meet and considered the case of the parties for promotion to the post of Labour Inspector, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes contains alterations in which the name of Raj Kumar respondent No.5 was inserted. It was pleaded, this change was made by respondent No.3, who was the Joint Labour Commissioner at that time and Member of this Departmental Promotion Committee. I called for and examined the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee and found that there interpolations were infact in the names for consideration which practice is to be deprecated and cannot be accepted under any circumstance. However, for the purposes of the present petition, I do not intend to say anything save and except that su