By the Court.—Rejoinder-affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manjeev Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. At the outset, Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that though he has made allegations against respondent No. 4 but he is not pressing the same, as such the issuance of notice to respondent No. 4 may be dispensed with.

4. In view of the above, notice to respondent No. 4 is dispensed with.

5. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Chief Engineer (Level-II) as per recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.P.C.’) held on 5.12.2017 within such reasonable time framed by this Court.

6. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer in U.P. Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.W.D.’) through direct recruitment conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 9.12.1983 and in due course of time, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and latter to the post of Superintending Engineer. Presently, he is holding the post of Superintending Engineer (Litigation), Lucknow, which falls in Group-A/Class-I Services. Further submission is that from the date of petitioner’s appointment, the career of petitioner has remained par excellence and the petitioner has been performing his duties to the best of his abilities with full sincerity and devotion.

7. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 5.12.2017 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Level-II) from amongst eligible Superintending Engineers, for selection year 2017-18 i.e. from 1.7.2017 to 30.6.2018 against eight vacancies. The recommendations of D.P.C. with regard to two Superintending Engineers were kept in a sealed cover on account of pendency of disciplinary inquiry/criminal proceedings against them and the petitioner was amongst nine Superintending Engineers, who were recommended for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. It has been pointed out that out of nine Superintending Engineers, eight are either already holding the post of Chief Engineer or have retired after promotion, and only the petitioner who despite having been declared fit for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer has been kept stagnant on the post of Superintending Engineer due to impugned inaction of the respondents in promoting the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer. It has further been pointed out that out of two Superintending Engineers whose result/recommendation was kept in sealed cover, one has already retired way back on 31.12.2017 and sealed cover envelope in respect of the other Superintending Engineer, namely, Shri Charu Chandra Joshi was opened on 26.4.2018 and he was found to be unfit/ineligible for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. Thus when the said post of Chief Engineer (Level-II) fell vacant on 27.4.2018, the petitioner preferred a representation to the respondent No. 1 praying to promote him against the said vacant post. In the meantime, another post of Chief Engineer (Level-II) fell vacant on 30.4.2018 due to retirement of one Shri S.K. Agarwal, who was holding the post of Chief Engineer, Meerut Division, P.W.D.

8. It has been vehemently contended that when the petitioner has been found eligible and on 1.5.2018 two posts of Chief Engineer fell vacant, thus there was no justification to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner and more so, when there is no legal impediment. Therefore, the petitioner once again approached the authority concerned by means of representation dated 3.5.2018 for promoting him to the post of Chief Engineer, but till date no