VIJAYRARGIYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as follows : the petitioner who was originally employed in the Dhar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. was taken up in the cadre which was formed for all the district Central Co-operative Banks established in the State of M. P. The petitioner was included in this cadre on 10. 6. 72 and was appointed as Chief Accountant in grade II in the cadre prepared and created by the respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner he was placed at S. No. 7 in the seniority list of grade II cadre officers as on 30. 6. 80. The respondent No. 2 by order dated 5. 8. 80. (Ann. 4) promoted the respondents No. 4 to 13 in cadre grade I on probation for a period of one year. According to the petitioner the order (Ann. 4) promoting the said respondents is liable to be quashed because the petitioner who was senior to these respondents was eligible for promotion and his case has not been considered by the respondent No. 2 for promotion. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2 at the time of promotion he committed considered the case of the petitioner and he was not promoted because he was not found fit for promotion. According to the respondent no. 2 other persons who were senior to the petitioner were also not promoted because they were not found fit for promotion. The respondent No. 2 also filed an application for leave to contend that as the-respondent No. 2 is not a statutory body it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. The respondent No. 2 has further contended that the respondents have not violated any rule having the force of law and therefore this court has no power to quash the order passed by the respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this petition has no force and must be dismissed. ( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this petition has no force and must be dismissed. Rule 15 of the M. P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and working Conditions) Rules, 1976 framed by the respondent No. 2 and approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the respondent No. 3 provides that promotion to Higher grade shall not be automatic but shall be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. ( 4 ) THUS the petitioner is not entitled to be promoted to a higher post merely on account of his seniority. All that the petitioner is entitled is that his case must be considered while making promotion to a higher post. According to the petitioner his case was not considered by the respondent no. 2 while making promotions and persons who were junior to him have been promoted. This allegation of the petitioner is denied by the respondent No. 2 in Para 9 of its return. In Para 9 of the return it is stated that as the case of the respondent No. 4 to 13 were otherwise fit for promotion to grade I on the basis of their merits and previous confidential reports, their cases were considered for promotion. It is wrong and is denied that the case of the petitioner was net taken into consideration for promotion. Actually his case was also considered but was not found fit for promotion. Copy of proceedings dated 31. 7. 80 are annexed and marked as Annexure R. I. Few of the employees are still in grade 11 whose names at the time of promotion were considered but as they were not found fit like the petitioner were not promoted as grade I officer. The names of such employees are in Annexure II of the petition at Seiial No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, and 27, out of these 3 to 6 were senior 10 the petitioner. ( 5 ) ANNEXURE R-I is the copy of the proceedings of the committee appointed for managing the affairs of the respondent No. 2 and which considered the question of promotion. It is recorded in the said proceedings regarding the petitioner that his work was not found satisfactory for the post held by him. ( 5 ) ANNEXURE R-I is the copy of the proceedings of the committee appointed for managing the affairs of the respondent No. 2 and which considered the question of promotion. It is recorded in the said proceedings regarding the petitioner that his work was not found satisfactory for the post held by him. H- was not successful in executing the work of accounts as Chief Accountant. ( 6 ) THUS, according to the respondent No. 2 the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion and he was not promoted because be was not found fit for promotion. The petitioner tiled a rejoinder in which he stated that his case was not considered for promotion. Now in view of the averment made in the return which is supported by an affidavit that the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion this court in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution cannot enquire into the disputed question of fact. This Court has to traced on the assumption that the petitioner's case was considered for promotion and he was not found fit for promotion. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that Annexure r-I contains an adverse remark into the. character roll of the petitioner and that the same having not been communicated to the petitioner cannot be taken into account while considerkg the question of promotion of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of ths Suprsme Court in Gurdial Singh Filjji v. State of Punjab and others [air 1979 S. C. 1622] and a decision of this court in P. C. Pradhan v. Union of India and others [1981 J. L J. 128], ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is also not well founded. Annexure R-I is not the adverse remark in the character roll of the petitioner. It contains the reasons for conclusion reached by the committee was not fit for promotion. The petitioner has not been passedover because of any adverse remark in hh character roll which has not been communicated to him and therefore the above decision relief upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not attracted to the present case. It contains the reasons for conclusion reached by the committee was not fit for promotion. The petitioner has not been passedover because of any adverse remark in hh character roll which has not been communicated to him and therefore the above decision relief upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not attracted to the present case. As it is not established that the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion although he was eligible for the same and persons who were junior to him have been promoted the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to consider the further questions whether the respondent No. 2 is not a statutory body and therefore is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court and that the rules framed by the respondent No. 2 are not statutory rules and therefore the act of the respondent No. 2 even If it contravenes any of the rule is not liable to be interfered with by this court in a petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) AS a result of the discussion aforesaid this petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Petition dismissed. .