WPSS No.513/10 Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J. Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Puran S. Bisht, S.C., for the State. Petitioner was working as Head Master. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted on 26.11.2008. It has recommended the case of petitioner at Serial No.40 after adjudging his suitability. Petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2008. However, the fact of the matter is that the Annexure No.4 dated 26.11.2008 has not been given effect to whereby the petitioner was found suitable for promotion to the post of Principal. Petitioner was also permitted to discharge the duties of Principal till the end of academic session. No cogent reasons have been assigned why the petitioner has not been promoted pursuant to the recommendation made by the DPC in its meeting held on 26.11.2008. Learned State Counsel has argued that since the petitioner has retired, he cannot be considered for promotion. Learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in WP (C) No.29242 of 2008 (F) in the case of P.M. Ravindran v. State of Kerala has gone through this issue in paragraph no.9 which reads as under: - “9. Going by the facts of the case, petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of notional promotion sought for. It is admitted that the meeting of the D.P.C was delayed due to administrative reasons. Going by the Rules they should have met sufficiently earlier and if so, the select list would have been published before the end of the previous year. Herein, the list was published only on 19/05/2007. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner cannot claim notional promotion after retirement on the ground that there existed a vacancy prior to his retirement cannot be accepted. As regards the vacancy position also, in the vacancy which arose in 01/07/2006 consequent on the retirement of Shri T.Rajan, Smt. Ambika Kumari who was Sl.No.1 inExt.P1 was promoted as Senior Administrative Assistant per order dated26/06/2007. Even though it is submitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, it is evident from the facts stated that the other persons have been chosen for promotion. In that view of the matter, it is not a case where the petitioner could be denied it on the ground that he has no vested right. But as a matter of fact, the Government has been conveniently conferring the benefit to other persons in whose case also the promotion was delayed.” There is remissness on the part of the respondents in not giving effect to the recommendation of DPC in its meeting held on 26.11.2008 whereby the relaxation of one year was also given. Petitioner was legitimately expecting that on the basis of the recommendation made by the DPC, he would be promoted to the post of Principal. However, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the order dated 20.2.2009. The retirement of petitioner will not come in his way for the simple reason that his suitability was adjudged and his name was recommended before his retirement. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Principal on regular basis as per the DPC recommendation held on 26.11.2008 for all intents and purposes. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of as such. (Rajiv Sharma, J.) 15.05.2018 Rdang