W. A. No.1152/10. 13.09.2011. We have heard both side. This appeal has been filed by the State Government against the final order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner, who is respondent before us was to be considered in a DPC held for promotion but his case was postponed because his ACRs for the certain years were not available. Other candidates were considered on the basis of the criteria fixed by the DPC in its meeting dated 9.1.1997, according to which the candidates were to be considered according to their Confidential entries for the year 1991-1995. According to the criteria, which is given in paragraph 3.6 (Ka), as found in Annexure A-2 to this appeal, it was essential that in the last two years ACRs entries should be “Good”. After postponed a review DPC was held wherein the petitioner's case was considered but not approved because in the relevant previous two years i. e. 1994 and 1995 his grading was “C”, which means average or below average. The learned Single Judge found correctly that even in the review DPC the ACR entries of the petitioner for the year 1991-1992 were not available. However, in our mind this fact become irrelevant because even if these two entries were found outstanding, the last two years entries of 1994- 1995 being below the essential entries of “Good”, the petitioner could not have been found fit for promotion. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/ petitioner that the entries of 1996-1997 should have been seen by the review DPC held on 9.1.1997 and both these grades were “Very Good”. Even the learned Single Judge gone on this consideration but it has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/ State that in the review DPC the candidate has to be considered on the same criteria, on which the candidates were considered in the original DPC. Therefore, the entries of 1991-1995 alone could have been seen in the review DPC as only these entries were seen in the original DPC in respect of other candidates considered for promotion. In view of these circumstances, we find that the decision of the review DPC could not be invalidated on the criteria laid down and validate by the original DPC and also followed by the review DPC. Appeal is allowed and the order of learned Single Judge is set aside. It has been argued by the respondent's counsel that in the promotion order dated 6.6.2000, which was passed on 28.5.1998 the petitioner was granted promotion with effect from the date on which his junior assumed charge on the promotional post. However, the word junior means junior who join the post pursuant to the fresh DPC dated 28.5.1998 and would not include the junior who had join the post on the basis of earlier DPC where the petitioner was found unfit. The appeal is allowed. (Sushil Harkauli) (U.C.Maheshwari) Acting Chief Justice Judge k/AK