EW,W‘W Wm m mmmHFa-a WW WW $Walé¥r TumaM s -' 'Mi Shri Anupam Dubey, coimsel ftnr the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey. Panel Lawyer‘for the sate/respondents. ‘ Heard. The peh'tioner has med m“ supercéssion. According m the communicated to him and upon r ’ expunged. The petih‘oner further s brnits that‘he submitted representations (Annexure A—4 & A—5) to the respond 'nt authorities for grant of promotion on the r but no decision has been taken on the petition aggrieved on acéount of his "oner, earlier an adverse remark was esentation, the said adverse remark was post of Assistant Project Administr case of the petitioner. No return has been hled. Learned counsel for the partie with direction to consider the case of In my opinion, interest of ju No.1 to consider and decide the repr supercession which have been pl Accordingly, the respondent represenmtions of the peh‘tioner by from the date of receipt of a cop represenmtion in addidon or continu six weeks from mday. Wim the aforesaid direction, t It is made clear that this Cou of the case submis thatthe matter may be disposed of e petitioner. woutd be served in direcu’ng respondent ntation made by the peh‘h'oner against his on record as Annexure A‘4 & A—5. o.1 is direomd to consider and decide the ing order within a period ofthree months of the order. The petitioner shatl make ‘on of earlier represenmn'on within a period e peh'tion stands disposed of. has not expressed any opinion on the meris Sd/r Manindra Mohair; Shrivastava Judge . [The W s‘ a s k