Judgment SURENDRA NARAIN JHA, J. 1. In this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6-5-1980 whereby respondents 4 to 21 were promoted to the post of Branch Manager (vide Annexure-3), the order dated 14-5-81 wherebv respondents 22 to 35 were promoted to the post of Branch Manager, the order dated 23-7-1981 whereby respondent No. 36 was promoted to the post of Branch Manager the order dated 6-5-1982 whereby respondents 37 to 48 were promoted to the post Branch Manager and the order dated 24-7-1981 whereby respondent Nos. 49 and 50 were promoted to the post of Branch Manager in the office of the Life insurance Corporation of India (herein- after referred to as L. I. C). It may be noted here that initially only 48 persons were made respondents to this application, but later on, respondest Nos. 49 and 50 were added vide order No. 11 dated 4-5-1983. 2. The short facts, of this case is that the petitioner is presently working as Assistant Branch Manager (D) in Munger Branch of the L. I. C. According to the petitioner, he has an unblemish career and for his hard work and sincerity got several letters of commendation and awards. According to him, he has worked with the power of Branch Manager several times whenever a permanant Branch Manager used to go on leave. He was also given independent charge of Dumka office from 9-8-76 to December, 1978. The petitioner has also worked with the power of senior Branch Manager from 27-5-1974 to 4-7-1979 at Munger office. 3. The case of the petitioner is that L. I. C. by letter dated 31-1-1977 issued a seniority list of officers working in Eastern Zone as Assistant Branch Manager (D) and Assistant Branch Manager (A)/Assistant Administrative Officers who were promoted as such on or before 31-12-1974 and on and after 1-1-1975 respectively. This petitioner was promoted as Assistant Branch Manager (D) in July, 1972. His name finds place at serial No. 6 of Group XXII of the seniority list of the Eastern Zone in the cadre of Assistant Branch Manager (D). a copy of whieh is Annexure-2 to this writ application. It is admitted position that the promotion for the higher grade is made Zone-wise. His name finds place at serial No. 6 of Group XXII of the seniority list of the Eastern Zone in the cadre of Assistant Branch Manager (D). a copy of whieh is Annexure-2 to this writ application. It is admitted position that the promotion for the higher grade is made Zone-wise. It is also admitted that officers promoted simultaneously will be put in one group and seniority in the group will be decided on the basis of age. In other words, a person in age will mark senior to the person of the same group who is younger. 4. The. petitioners case is that L. I. C. vide Annexure 3 promoted 22 Assistant , Branch Managers to the post of Branch Manager out of whom. 18 persons, namely, respondents 4 to 21 were iuniors to the petitioner, the details of which are given in paragraph 7 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner when he came to know about the promotion of the aforesaid respondents 4 to 21. he sent a representation to respondent No. 2. the Managing Director of L. I. C. to promote him to the cadre of Branch Manager. That representation was duly forwarded. A copy of the representation is Annexure 4 to this writ application. According to the petitioner, as he was expecting his promotion. but he was surprised to find that the respondent L. I. C. again promoted 18 persons by an order dated 14-5-81 out of whom 14 persons, namely, respondents 22 to 35, were junior to the petitioner, the details of which are given in paragraph 9 of of the writ application. The petitioner did not receive any communication from the respondent L. I. C. regarding the decision on his representation. The petitioner could know about the same only in the last week of the month of September, 1981, Again he filed a representation before the Managing Director of L. I. C. on 1-10-1981 requesting him to promote the petitioner to the post of Branch Manager. The petitioner could know about the same only in the last week of the month of September, 1981, Again he filed a representation before the Managing Director of L. I. C. on 1-10-1981 requesting him to promote the petitioner to the post of Branch Manager. This petitioner has also stated in his representation that although he is senior to the persons promoted but without any rhyme or reason he was not promoted, but this representation also met with the same fate as that of the earlier one and L. I. C, according to the petitioner did not take any action nor anything was communicated to the petitioner till the filing of this writ application. The L. I. C. has also promoted respondent No. 36 to the post of Branch Manager who is also iunior to the petitioner. Further grievance of the petitioner is that L. I. C. without taking any decision on the representation of the petitioner, again promoted 14 persons to the post of Branch Manager out of whom 12 persons (respondents 37 to 48) were iunior to the petitioner by its order dated 6-5-1982, the details of which are mentioned i.n paragraph 15 of the writ application. As I have already stated earlier that on 4-5-83, the prayer for addition of respondents 49 and 50 was made and it was allowed on the ground that these two persons were also promoted to the post of Branch Manager vide order dated 14-7-81. Being aggrieved by those orders, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the same on several grounds. 5. According to the petitioner, although he is senior to respondents 4 to 48 having unblemish career has not been promoted. The petitioner has also asserted that under Regulation 7 (2) (c) (d) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, I960 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations. 1960), for promotion to the post of Branch Manager, the appointing authority has to be assisted by three officers not below the rank of Zonal Manager, which has not been done. According to him, the petitioner has learnt that his case of promotion nor the cases of respondents 4 to 48 were placed before the Committee as envisaged under the aforesaid provisions. According to him, the petitioner has learnt that his case of promotion nor the cases of respondents 4 to 48 were placed before the Committee as envisaged under the aforesaid provisions. It was stated that non- consideration of the case of promotion of the petitioner for which he was eligible, is clearly illegal, discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 controverting all these assertions. A reply to the counter-affidavit was also filed by the petitioner reiterating his earlier stand. After filing of the reply, another counter-affidavit was filed. which will be discussed later on. 6. Mr. Basudev Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, challenged these orders of promotion mainly on two grounds i. e. (1) Regulation 7 (3) of the Staff Regulations 1960 has not been followed and (2) there has been violation of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. In order to appreciate his submissions, I will have to refer to certain regulations of the Staff Regulations. 1960. Chapter II of the Staff Regulations. 1960 deals with appointments,. promotions and termination of service of the staff of the L. I. C. Regulation 7 (1) lays down that all recruitments and promotions shall be made against the vacancies in sanctioned posts. CI (2) of Regulation 7 makes it clear that in making selection and promotions, the appointing authority shall be assisted by committees as prescribed under the Staff Regulations 1960. As I have mentioned earlier that the assertion of the petitioner was that the provisions of Regulation 7 (2) (c) (&) of the Staff Regulations 1960 was not followed and in reply to the counter-affidavit, he has emphatically asserted that no committee of three officers, not below the rank of Zonal Manager, was constituted for assisting the appointing authority in making promotions. Therefore, the question of consideration of the case of the petitioner as well as the case of respondents 4 to 48 did not arise. In reply to the counter-affidavit the petitioner has further asserted that the statement of the petitioner to the effect that the committee was not formed in accordance with Regulation 7 (2) (d) has not been denied by the L. I.C. In the second counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, this part of the statement has been denied by them. Mr. Mr. S. M. A. Nasar. who is Assistant Divisional Manager (D) and the constituted Attorney has sworn an affidavit that for the purpose of considering the cases of Assistant Branch Managers (D) including that of the petitioner for promotion, a high power committee consisting of Shri C. R. Thakore, Chief (Investment), Shri A. R. Srinivasan Chief Vigilance Officer and Shri N. K. Shinker, Chief (Personnel) none of whom is below the rank of Zonal Manager, was constituted by the Managing Director who was the competent authority to make promotions to the cadre of Branch Managers under Regulation 7 (2) (i) (d) of the Staff Regulations 1960 for assisting the Managing Director to make selections for promotions. According to him, the said committee considered the cases of all the respondents, including that of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of such assertions it is difficult to hold that the procedure as contemplated in Regulation 7 (2) (d) has not been followed. 7. So far as. the first point raised by Mr. Basudev Prasad is concerned, it is essential to quote clause (3) of Regulation 7 of the Staff Regulation, 1960, which reads as follows: "7 (3) Promotion shall be based on merit, suitability of the candidate for a particular post and seniority, merit and suitability may be judged by confidential reports and/or interviews and/or examinations." According to the learned counsel, seniority of the petitioner was not considered by the committee while considering the cases of other respondents in the year 1980. According to him. the petitioners case was reiected on some extraneous consideration. In this connection, he referred to Annaxure-A filed along with the second counter affidavit. He drew our attention to the following passage ".........The Committee has considered the cases of AIMS.D (D) who entered that cadre in the year 1973 or earlier in ail the zones. After reviewing the cases of all the said officers and assessing their merits, and suitability for promotion to the post of Branch Managers and taking into account their qualifications, experience and performance as revealed by confidential reports, the Committee recommends that the following 100 officers be promoted and posted as Branch Managers............." Therefore, according to him, the seniority of the petitioner as contemplated in Regulation 7 (3) has not been taken into consideration. 8 From the examination of Regulation 7 (3), it is clear that besides merit and suitability, seniority was also to be taken into consideration. Seniority cannot be ignored altogether. According to Regulation 7 (3) of the Staff Regulations 1960. the promotion was to be based on merit, suitability of the candidates in a particular post and seniority and suitability was to be judged by a confidential, report and/or interviews and/or examinations. It is, no doubt. true that the Regulations, are statutory Regulations and binding on the petitioner as well as on the respondents. I have stated earlier that the petitioner was promoted in July, 1972 as Assistant Branch Manager and it is not disputed that he was confirmed in 1974. It was submitted that delay in confirmation cannot stand in the way of future promotion of the petitioner. It was argued on behalf of the respondent L.I.C. that the petitioners case was considered by the selection committee and the committee did not consider the petitioner fit for promotion to the cadre of Branch Manager during the financial year 1980-81 after assessment of his, qualification, experience and confidential report. According to him. experience was taken into consideration and it includes seniority. Merit, suitability and seniority and the main factors to be considered for promotion. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent L. I. C. no extraneous consideration has been made nor any irrelevant facts have been considered for not promoting the petitioner to the post of Branch Manager. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to Annexures D and H. which are copies of recommendations of the selection committee dated 2-5-1981 and copy of proceedings of selection committee, dated 6-5-1982, respectively, as well. In Annexure-D, he pointed out that the committee, after reviewing the cases of all the said officers and assessing their merit and suitability for promotion and . taking into account their qualifications, seniority and performance as revealed by confidential report, recommended that 119 officers be promoted and posted as Branch Managers. Similarly, he showed to us Annexure-H where also he pointed out that the committee, after reviewing the cases of all the said officers and on the basis of their seniority, suitability and merit as revealed by the confidential reports, recommended the cases of 111 officers to be promoted and posted as Branch Managers. Similarly, he showed to us Annexure-H where also he pointed out that the committee, after reviewing the cases of all the said officers and on the basis of their seniority, suitability and merit as revealed by the confidential reports, recommended the cases of 111 officers to be promoted and posted as Branch Managers. It was submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of L. I. C. that, for the sake of argument, assuming that the selection committee did not take into consideration the seniority of the petitioner in the year 1980, it is established that the committee did take into consideration the seniority, merit and suitability of the petitioner, inter alia, while considering their cases in the year 1981-82. It is, therefore, futile to argue that something which was considered and rejected on merits during the years 1981-82 should be vitiated on account of any such non-consideration during the year 1980. Therefore, the question of such assumption, as to whether the petitioners case in respect of his seniority was not considered in the year 1980 remains merely a matter of academic importance. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Ranjit Singh etc. v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 481). therefore, cannot be pressed into service on the facts of this case. The reliance placed upon bv the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Union of India v. M. L. Kapoor ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ): (1974 Lab IC 338) is hardly available to him in support of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in C. W. No. 617 of 1975. That case in its turn on the facts as relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M. L. Kapoor (AIR 1674 SC 87) : (1974 Lab IC 338) can hardly help him. All said and done, the petitioner did not choose to come up to this Court in its writ jurisdiction for the assumed non-consideration of his seniority in the year 1980 and let the year roil by during the years 1981-82. Any interference in this matter would lead to. assuming the petitioners contention to be tenable, administrative disorder which is not to be encouraged. 9. So far as the second contention of Mr. Any interference in this matter would lead to. assuming the petitioners contention to be tenable, administrative disorder which is not to be encouraged. 9. So far as the second contention of Mr. Basudev Prasad is concerned, in view of the discussions made above, there is hardly any scope for the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the contravention of either Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the last resort, submitted that even if there has been some delay, instead of sending it back for reconsideration to the departmental authorities concerned, this Court can directly give a direction to promote the petitioner and for this purpose, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of The Distt. Registrar. Palghat v. M. B. Koyyakutty ( AIR 1979 SC 1960 ). In that case on the unique facts and circumstances, it was held that the Court can give a positive direction for the promotion of the aggrieved government servant, But. in view of what I have held in the preceding paragraphs, the question remains merely research in law and has no practical bearing upon the facts of the instant case. 11. For the reasons stated above. the application is dismissed, but in the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. H.L.AGRAWAL, J. 12 I have closely gone through the iudgment of my learned Brother S. N. Jha. J., and while agreeing with him I would add a few observations of my own. I. however, need not repeat what has been already said by my learned Brother. 13. Mr. Basudeva Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged the promotions of the concerned respondents on the ground that the order of first promotion made on 6-5-1980 did not consider one of the relevant criteria, namely seniority in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (3) of regulation 7 of the (Staff) Regulations. 1960. This position is not disputed but the fact remains that in the next two promotions the criterion of seniority was taken into account and the petitioner. however, did not qualify for promotion. Mr. Basudeva Prasad, however, challenged these promotions on the ground that the criterion of qualification which was not a relevant consideration was also taken into account and. 1960. This position is not disputed but the fact remains that in the next two promotions the criterion of seniority was taken into account and the petitioner. however, did not qualify for promotion. Mr. Basudeva Prasad, however, challenged these promotions on the ground that the criterion of qualification which was not a relevant consideration was also taken into account and. therefore he argued that the subsequent promotions must be held to be vitiated on this account. 14. The first promotion, on account of the non-considerstion of the relevant consideration, namely, seniority, may be vitiated. but in view of the fact that in the next two promotions this relevant consideration was taken into account and the petitioners case was considered, the infirmity, if any. was cured. After all, all that this Court could direct would be to consider his case. Had the petitioner been found eligible for promotion in the subsequent considerations and would have been put below the promotees of the earlier occasion, then he might have raised a grievance that on that account the petitioner should be given his due position. The attack on the next promotions on the ground of consideration of the criterion of qualification does not appeal to me as nothing was indicated that on consideration of this criterion any of the respondents who were promoted under these orders, was given an edge over the petitioner on account of their possessing any higher qualification than the petitioner. It may well be that the respondents and the petitioner might be possessng the same academic qualifications. In the absence, therefore, of any material that on account of consideration of this, irrelevant, factor any of the respondents stole a march over the petitioner, it is not possible to hold that the subsequent promotions must be deemed to be vitated. The application, therefore, must fail.