JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - The Petitioner joined as a Writer. Constable in the police department, in October, 1962 and after officiating as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from November, 1964, was finally appointed to that post and confirmed on January 1, 1979. He has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his non-selection as a Sub-Inspector of Police in 1978 and non-consideration of his case for promotion in 1979. The opposite parties have explained the position and have averred that the Petitioner's case had duly been considered for promotion during both the years, but he was found to be unsuitable for promotion to the higher post. 2. At the stage of hearing, Dr. Dash, appearing for the Petitioner, has addressed us only with regard to non-consideration of the Petitioner's case for promotion in 1979. He has invited our attention to the principles laid down in The State of Mysore and Anr. v. Syed Mahmood and Ors. AIR 1961 S.C. 1113, with regard to the right of a civil servant to he considered for proposition. 3. It is not disputed at the Bar that the intimation sent to the Petitioner to appear before the Range Selection Board in 1979 was received by him a couple of days after the date fixed. But the non-appearance of the Petitioner had nothing to do with his non-selection by the Central Board as the Range Selection Board had categorically remarked that he was not nominated as he was not found to be fit. As a matter of fact, the Range Selection Board had inter viewed the Petitioner also in 1978 and had found that his professional knowledge was not upto the mark. 4. As has been submitted by the learned Counsel for both the sides seniority-cum-merit is the basis for promotion to the higher post of the Sub-Inspector of Police. When promotion is based on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, an officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, by virtue of seniority alone. If he is found to be unfit to discharge the duties of a higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted. An employee in the services under the State has a right to be considered for promotion, but has no right to be promoted. If he is found to be unfit to discharge the duties of a higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted. An employee in the services under the State has a right to be considered for promotion, but has no right to be promoted. The Petitioner's case for promotion to the higher post was considered, but he was not considered to be fit for promotion. It may also be mentioned here that in 1979, the Petitioner's position was at serial No. 335 and only the cases of persons who were at serial No. 1 to 100 in the seniority list had been sent up to the Central Selection Board for consideration as there were but twenty vacancies and therefore, five times the number had been forwarded to the Central Selection Board for selection of Officers for promotion to the higher posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police. The Petitioner can have, therefore, no legitimate grievance for the foregoing reasons. 5. The writ application is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding. R.C. Patnaik, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed