ORDER

R.L. Gulati, J. - This and the connected petitions raise a common question and can conveniently be decided by a single judgment. In Writ Petition No. 742 of 1971 (Sri Ram Narain Pathak v. The State of U. P. and others) there is a small additional point which will be dealt with separately. This judgment, therefore, shall dispose of all the petitions.

2. The facts of the petition of Sri Panna Lal Gupta may now be briefly stated.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Uttar Pradesh on February 2, 1942. He was promoted as Circle Inspector in the year 1950 and was confirmed in that post with effect from August 2, 1958. The petitioner's allegation is that in November 1955, a selection committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, the Inspector General of Police and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, U. P. had selected him for permanent appointment as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter a selection committee was again convened in the month of May, 1962, for the revision of the list of candidates selected for permanent appointment earlier in 1955 and for bringing on the list some more names. The petitioner's name continued to be borne on that list. Thereafter the Commission again met in the year 1969 when it interviewed about 300 candidates out of whom sixty candidates were selected for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner's name did not appear in that list. The petitioner has challenged the selection held in the year 1969 in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. The first contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that he having been selected for permanent appointment in the year 1955 and again in the year 1962, it was not necessary for him to be interviewed again in the year 1969. He was entitled to the promotion as a matter of right on the basis of the selection already made. In the alternative he challenged the selection of the year 1969 on the ground of its being contrary to the rules, unfair and biased.

5. Now, the first thing to be seen is whether the petitioner was really selected for permanent appointment in the year 1955. Under Rule 5 (ii) of the U. P. Police Service Rules, 1942, only confirmed Inspectors below 45 years of age are eligible for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Admittedly the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Circle Inspector with effect from August 2, 1958, and as such he could not have been selected for permanent appointment to the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in November, 1955. The very foundation of the petitioner's argument thus disappears. In fact in November, 1955, selection was made only of the candidates for appointment in temporary vacancies. This is clear from the letter dated December 20, 1955, from the U. P. Civil Secretariat Appointment (A) Department, Lucknow, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the counter-affidavit of Sri A. B. Joshi. This letter clearly states:

"I am desired to say that the Selection Committee which met at Lucknow in November last and interviewed candidates for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Complaints) selected 63 officers whom they considered suitable for appointment in temporary vacancies. The Commission have approved all the 63 names and I am to forward a copy of the list in duplicate. The names have been arranged in order of seniority....."

The list of 63 candidates shows that the petitioner's name appears at Serial No. 55.

6. From Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of Sri A. B. Joshi it appears that a selection committee did meet in 1962 for considering the case of officiating Deputy Superintendents of Police for confirmation. In fact a similar Selection Committee had met earlier in 1959 also. In the year 1959 as well as 1962, the petitioner was not found suitable by the selection committee for confirmation and his name continued to be borne on List B and was not brought to List A. It may