JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BOTH the petitions will be conveniently disposed of by a common order. ( 2. ) PETITIONERS R. S. Parashar (M. P. No. 2045 of 1983) and B. M. Shitole (M. P. No. 2711 of 1983) are employees of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. They have challenged their supersession by the respondents to the posts of section officers on the High Court establishment. ( 3. ) R. S. Parashar entered the High Court establishment as Translator on 4-5-1957. Prior to that he was an Upper Division Clerk in the District Court since 1949, but we are not concerned with his past service. He was confirmed as translator with effect from 12-1-1962. He worked in different administrative branches of the High Court Office from time to time. He was promoted as Head Translator w. e. f. 6-10-1981. During the pendency of his petition he has been confirmed as Head Translator by order dated 15-9-1983. Respondents C. B. Joshi and C. S. Pare (respondents 4 and 5 in M. P. No. 2045 of 1983) were appointed as translators on 28-9-1960 and 24-4-1974 respectively and were confirmed on 9-2-1962 and 5-8-1977. ( 4. ) THE conditions of service of the High Court Staff are governed by Rules framed by the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur in 1937 subject to such modifications as have been made from time to time. Admittedly Rule 16 of the said Rules (see annexure R-I) governs the promotion of the staff of the High Court from a lower to the higher post. It may be reproduced for the sake of convenience. "16. There is no bar to advancement from the lower division to the upper division but promotion to higher posts the duties of which demand a greater degree of intelligence will be made strictly on merit tempered by seniority and no vice versa. A thoroughly efficient lower division clerk may be given a trial in a temporary vacancy depending upon his ability and work. The minimum educational qualifications prescribed for candidates directly recruited for these posts will not be enforced in the cases of these promotions. " Rule 16 was partially amended by the Chief Justice on 22-10-1962 (Annexure r-3 ). A thoroughly efficient lower division clerk may be given a trial in a temporary vacancy depending upon his ability and work. The minimum educational qualifications prescribed for candidates directly recruited for these posts will not be enforced in the cases of these promotions. " Rule 16 was partially amended by the Chief Justice on 22-10-1962 (Annexure r-3 ). After amendment the rule reads as follows : "promotions to the posts of Section Officers, Assistant Editor, i. L. R. , Examiner, Head-Translator, Librarian and Stamp Reporter, shall be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Promotions to the posts of Assistant, Translators and Upper Division Clerks shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. " ( 5. ) CRITERION, therefore, for promotion to the posts of section officers has always been merit-cum-seniority. Employee evaluation has been a subject matter of much research in the recent past and the efficacy of "merit-rating" by keeping dossiers has been doubted. Pfifner and Presthus in their celebrated book public Administration (Third Edition) in Chapter 16 under the heading personnel Dynamics have dealt with the topic of employee Evaluation at pages 273-277. The authors have noted as follows- the folklore of our competitive culture demands that workers be scored or rated on the basis of their worth to the organization. Most civil service laws require that workers be rated on the basis of their comparative efficiency once or twice a year. " Then in the next para they observe : - "it is well known that supervisors hesitate to differentiate workers on the basis of performance. Workers ordinarily resent not only a low rating, but one which is not commendatory. Thus, the story is told about the employee who complained: "i simply cannot understand why I should receive a rating as bad as good. In this case, "good" was the lowest of three possible grades, below "excellent" and "very good. " The resulting tendency to rate everyone in the two top categories usually leads to a sense of defeat and frustration. This means quite generally that rating is done rather mechanically, merely to comply with regulations. Most workers are rated in the superior categories; a plotted curve thus slants toward the higher marks or is uniformly flat. " ( 6. " The resulting tendency to rate everyone in the two top categories usually leads to a sense of defeat and frustration. This means quite generally that rating is done rather mechanically, merely to comply with regulations. Most workers are rated in the superior categories; a plotted curve thus slants toward the higher marks or is uniformly flat. " ( 6. ) THE Supreme Court in M. L. Capoors case ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ) has to make the following interesting remarks in para 17- "merit is certainly an elusive factor capable of being judged very differently from different angles, or, by applications of varying tests of it by different persons, or, by the same persons, at different times. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that to make supposed merit the sole test for selection would be to leave the door wide open for nepotism to creep into selections for higher rungs of public service by promotion and that this would undermine the morale of members of the State services and weaken incentives for honest work and achievement of better standards of proficiency by them. " ( 7. ) TO say the least, generally the merit rating in the confidential reports are unscientific and mechanical. The remarks are not necessarily objective. However, the system cannot be changed overnight till a more scientific and rational system is evolved. It is worth mentioning that in practice, promotions to higher posts in the Judicial services are made on seniority-cum-merit basis which entitles a person to promotion on the basis of seniority unless there is some adverse remark about his competence, integrity etc. Chief Justice may, if he thinks it advisable, consider amendment of Rule 16 of 1937 Rules so that ministerial posts upto section officer may be filled on seniority-cum-merit rule. ( 8. ) REVERTING to the facts, on 16-3-1980, the Chief Justice appointed a departmental Promotion Committee consisting of the Registrar, the Senior Additional registrar from the Judicial Services and the Additional Registrar from Ministerial services for making recommendations for promotions to all class II and class III posts. Two posts of section officers had fallen vacant and one more was likely to fall vacant shortly. Two posts of section officers had fallen vacant and one more was likely to fall vacant shortly. The Departmental Promotion Committee as constituted by the Chief Justice, considered the confidential records of eligible persons for promotion on the said posts and Recommended the names of Shri G. L. Jha, Shri K. C. Shrivastava, Shri M. G. Dolke and Shri Himmatsingh for three posts of section officers on 4-10-1982 (Annexure R-5 ). Promotions were made accordingly on 5-10-1982 on the said recommendations of the departmental Promotion Committee. There was a spate of representations against these appointments. The Madhya Pradesh High Court Employees Association also considered this matter in a meeting and passed a resolution on 28-1-1982 which it submitted to the Chief Justice for consideration. One of demands was that Rule 16 of the high Court Recruitment and Conditions of Services Rules 1937 may be amended so that promotion upto the post of section officer should be made on seniority-cum-merit basis. The Chief Justice, as already noted partly accepted this demand by amending Rule 16 vide his order dated 22-10-1982. ( 9. ) THE Chief Justice thereafter by order dated 24-11-1982 (Annexure R-3a)constituted a Committee of three Judges to consider the representations made by the superseded members of the staff and make recommendations to him. This order was further modified and amplified by the Chief Justice vide his order dated 5-3-1983 (Annexure R-8) which directed that besides examining the representations made to him the Committee of Judges may also consider the case of any person who has not made any representation but who may have been superseded without any just cause. ( 10. ) THE Judges Committee considered the cases of all eligible members of the staff for promotion to the posts of section officers which had already fallen vacant and which were to fall vacant by the end of 1983 and recommended eight persons against the existing and future vacancies upto the end of 1983. It is a detailed report dated 16th march 1983. There were recommendations for other posts also with which we are not concerned. The names recommended by the Judges Committee were- Shri C. B. Joshi, Shri M. G. Dolke, Shri Seth Hewas, Shri C. S. Pare, Shri A. S. Saxena, Shri G. L. Jha, Shri K. C. Shrivastava and Shri D. J. Joshi. There were recommendations for other posts also with which we are not concerned. The names recommended by the Judges Committee were- Shri C. B. Joshi, Shri M. G. Dolke, Shri Seth Hewas, Shri C. S. Pare, Shri A. S. Saxena, Shri G. L. Jha, Shri K. C. Shrivastava and Shri D. J. Joshi. It may be noted that in the revised list and in the original list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee, three names i. e. G. L. Jha, K. C. Shrivastava and M. G. Dolke were common. C. B. Joshi, Seth hewas, C. S. Pare, Shri A. S. Saxena and D. J. Joshi who too were considered by the departmental Promotion Committee, were not recommended by it. C. B. Joshi and C. S. Pare who were Translators and respondents 4 and 5 in M. P. No. 2045 of 1983 and the rest who were Assistants, are respondents in M. P. No. 2711 of 1983. ( 11. ) IN paragraph 14 of the recommendations made by the Judges Committee, it was mentioned that the Committee had considered all eligible persons and had not confined the selection only to persons included in the panel by the Departmental promotion Committee, or those who had represented against that selection. ( 12. ) SELECTION to the post of Section Officer is made from two channels i. e. Translators and Assistants. Formerly there was some confusion about the eligibility of the members of the staff for promotion to the post of section officer. Different views were expressed at different times. This led to a writ petition by one of the staff members and the Division Bench of this Court cleared the smog and laid down definite guide-lines with regard to the eligibility of the members of the staff for the post of section officer in the High Court M. A. Qureshi vs. State of M. P. and others (1978 J. L. J. 675 ). It was held therein that Translators were also entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of section officer along with Assistants or U. D. C. Grade I. ( 13. ) THE Judges Committee in paragraph 2 of its recommendations (Annexure R-9) noted that selections were made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority rule i. e. the promotion was to be made primarily on merits and seniority was regarded when merit was equal. It further observed -. ) THE Judges Committee in paragraph 2 of its recommendations (Annexure R-9) noted that selections were made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority rule i. e. the promotion was to be made primarily on merits and seniority was regarded when merit was equal. It further observed -. "consistently above average performance, preferably for the last several years with no significant adverse remark as far as possible, has been our criterion. " ( 14. ) PETITIONER Shri R. S. Parashar admittedly was senior to respondents 4 and 5 as translator. The Judges Committee was not satisfied about Ms fitness lor promotion on the merit-cum-seniority basis. We sent for the service records of petitioner Shri R. S. Parashar and respondents 4 and 5 Shri C. B. Joshi and Shri C. S. Pare. We examined the confidential remarks in their service files from 1978 to 1982. We noted that for the year 1980 remark in the confidential file of R. S. Parashar by the then Additional Registrar shri R. K. Seth was not commendatory. The same remark was repeated for the succeeding year 1981. Both these remarks were written on 18-8-1981. It appears that the additional Registrar had not written the confidential file of the petitioner for the year 1980 and, therefore, entries for both the years were made on 18-8-1981. This illustrates the mechanical manner in which merit-ratings are done. ( 15. ) NOW, if these two remarks are left out of consideration, there is no difference in the quality of the remarks entered in the service books of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 for 1978,1979 and 1982. Had the assessment of petitioners merit been confined to these entries only, there could be no challenge to his supersession because of high powered committee consisting of three Senior Judges had taken into consideration the comparative suitability of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 on the basis of their service records for the preceding years. The Judges Committee instead of referring to the actual period of service which was taken into consideration, mentioned that they had considered the records of the candidates for the last several years. Learned counsels criticism about the alleged ambiguity in defining the period which was taken into consideration is however not justified because it appears that the period taken into consideration was from 1978 onwards. ( 16. Learned counsels criticism about the alleged ambiguity in defining the period which was taken into consideration is however not justified because it appears that the period taken into consideration was from 1978 onwards. ( 16. ) BUT there is one very significant circumstance in the case of R. S. Parashar. He alleged in his rejoinder/affidavit that he was promoted as Head Translator on 6-10-1981 and was confirmed in the said post during the pendency of this petition on 15-9-1983. According to Rule 16 of 1937 Rules and even according to the modification in the said rule by the Chief Justice on 22-10-1982 promotion to the post of Head Translator was to be made strictly on merit tempered with seniority. Petitioners promotion, therefore, as head Translator was made on the assessment of comparative merits of all the translators who were eligible for appointment to the higher post of the Head translator. Since the comparative merit of the petitioner had been tested in October, 1981 itself and there was nothing in his record which could be treated as an adverse entry after his promotion, there was no basis for holding that respondents 4 and 5 who were junior to him in the gradation list and whose merit was found too inferior to the petitioner, could be considered as superior to him in merit on the date when their comparative merits were considered by the Judges Committee. ( 17. ) NO return cum affidavit was filed by the respondents in counter to the rejoinder/affidavit of the petitioner. The averments made in the petition and further clarified in the rejoinder make it clear that the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were considered for promotion to the higher post of Head Translator and after such consideration the petitioner was selected and appointed to that post. Even if the entry in the confidential records for the years 1980 and 1981 which as already noted had been made by the Additional Registrar on the same date i. e. 18-84981 were not favourable, the same will have to be re-examined in the light of petitioners promotion by the Chief justice as Head Translator on merit-cum-seniority basis when, respondents 4 and 5 were also considered along with him. Reference can be made for assessment of such past entries to the following observation of the Supreme Court in J. D. Shrivastava vs. State of M. P. and others ( AIR 1984 SC 630 "dependence on such stale entries cannot be placed for retiring a person compulsorily, particularly when the officer concerned has been promoted subsequent to such entries. " In D. Ramashwami vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1982 SC 793 ), the Supreme Court observed - "in the face of the promotion of the appellant just a few months earlier and nothing even mildly suggestive of inaptitude or inefficiency thereafter, it is impossible to sustain the order of the Government retiring the appellant from service. The learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu argued that the government was entitled to take into consideration the entire history of the appellant including that part of it which was prior to his promotion. We do not say that the previous history of a Government servant should be completely ignored, once he is promoted. Sometimes past events may help to assess present conduct. But when there is nothing in the present conduct casting any doubt on the wisdom of the promotion, we see no justification for needless digging into the past. " Though these observations were made on petitions challenging compulsory retirements, they have some relevance to cases of promotions also. ( 18. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 (no return was filed by respondents 3 to 5) referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Jai Narayan mishra vs. The State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1971 SC 1318 ), and urged that when an appointment is made on the basis of merit, question of seniority is not relevant and the high Court is not justified in the absence of mala fides, in interfering with the selection made by the Public Service Commission or the State Government (in this case the Chief justice ). The case is not in point. The selection in the cited case was solely on the basis of merit without reference to seniority and this was made clear by the Government when it directed the Commission to proceed to select one of the officers mentioned in the list on the basis of merit and suitability. The case is not in point. The selection in the cited case was solely on the basis of merit without reference to seniority and this was made clear by the Government when it directed the Commission to proceed to select one of the officers mentioned in the list on the basis of merit and suitability. Under Rule 16 of the Staff Rules 1937, however, selection had to be made on the basis of merit tempered with seniority. ( 19. ) LEARNED counsel then relied on Union of India vs. M. L. Capoor and others ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ). In the cited case the Court was considering Regulation 5 (5) of the indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. Regulation 5 (2) provided that selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respect with due regard to seniority. Explaining the relative importance of merit and seniority in such cases, the Court explained that when selection had to be made on the basis of merit-cum-senio " y, primary consideration was merit and if the candidates possess equal merit, seniority will be the decisive factor. The application of this formula for selection of candidates for appointment is now very well established and admits of no other construction. ( 20. ) HOWEVER, this construction of the merit-cum-seniority formula does not adversely affect the petitioners case. As already observed, upto the years 1980 and 1981 the comparative merits of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were similar and there was nothing to show that one was superior to the others. We examined the original confidential files ourselves and we did not find that respondents 4 and 5 were considered above average or superior to the petitioner. Obviously the selection committee took note of the adverse entries in 1980 and 1981 which, as already noted, were recorded on the same date i. e. 18-8-1981 by the then Additional Registrar, Shri R. K. Seth. But these adverse entries were presumably taken note of and superseded by the Chief Justice who promoted the petitioner as Head Translator subsequently i. e. on 6-10-1981, The adverse entries for the earlier years, therefore, required re-examination in view of the subsequent promotion of the petitioner on 6-10-1981 which was done by the Chief justice on a comparative assessment of all the eligible candidates including respondents 4 and 5, ( 21. ) UNDOUBTEDLY the Chief Justice took utmost caution and care in making promotions to the post of section officers. He did not accept the Departmental promotion Committees recommendations and referred the cases of all the eligible persons to a very high powered body consisting of three senior Judges of the High Court. This shows absolute fairness on his part. But it appears that the fact that the petitioner had been promoted on 6-10-1981 as Head Translator in spite of the remarks in his confidential file for 1980 and 1981 (dated 18-8-1981) was not pointedly brought to the notice of the Judges Committee. Therefore, the Judges Committee did not take into consideration a very important factor for determining comparative merits of the candidates. This resulted in the supersession of the petitioner. The Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can in such circumstances interfere so as to safeguard the rights of an aggrieved person. Normally the Court confines itself to the question whether the case of a candidate had been considered by the authority concerned or not. But if it is found that the case was considered alright but a substantial and crucial factor was overlooked, the Court has power to interfere in such selection. ( 22. ) WE are, therefore, of the view that petitioner R. S. Parashar was superseded because this particular aspect of his promotion as Head Translator which was done on merit-cum-seniority rule was overlooked as it was not brought to the notice of the judges Committee and the Chief Justice. In this view of the matter, we hold that petitioners supersession was not justified. The petition (M. P. No. 2045 of 1983) is allowed. The orders promoting respondents 4 and 5 C. B. Joshi and C. S. Pare as section officers on the establishment of the High Court by order dated 23-3-1983 (Annexure B)and 24-3-1983 (Annexure D) are quashed. The Chief Justice may consider the question of promotion from among Translators to the post of section officer afresh. There will be no order as to costs. Security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. ( 23. ) PETITIONER B. M. Shitoley was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the High court establishment of the erstwhile Madhya Bharat in 1952. The Chief Justice may consider the question of promotion from among Translators to the post of section officer afresh. There will be no order as to costs. Security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. ( 23. ) PETITIONER B. M. Shitoley was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the High court establishment of the erstwhile Madhya Bharat in 1952. He was eventually promoted as Upper Division Clerk, Grade I on 7-2-1975 w. e. f. 742-1972 and was confirmed in the said post vide order dated 29-4-1977. Promotions and appointments on the posts of section officers were made on 13-6-1980,5-10-1981,23-3-1983 and 17-8-1983. Respondents 2 to 7 were appointed as section officers by virtue of the aforesaid orders on different dates. Respondent No. 8 was also approved for promotion but the same was deferred till 31-12-1983 (Orders are Annexures P-6 to P-12 ). 23a. Respondents 2 to 8 who were U. D. C. 1 or Assistants on the establishment of the High Court were admittedly junior to the petitioner. Promotion to the post of section officer as already indicated earlier was made on merit-cum-seniority basis vide rule 16 of the High Court Rules of 1937 referred to above. The channels for promotion to the post of section officer consisted of Translators and U. D. C. I or Assistants. ( 24. ) PETITIONERs grievance was that his record of service was consistently good and, therefore, his supersession by respondents 2 to 8 was unjustified and infringed articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 25. ) WE have already narrated while dealing with the petition of R. S. Parashar that the Chief Justice had appointed a Judges Committee to screen the records of all the eligible candidates for promotion to the posts of section officers and appointments of respondents 2 to 7 and approval of respondent No. 8 had been made in accordance with the recommendations of the Judges" Committee. The recommendations (Annexure R-9) mention in paragraph 14 that the Committee considered all eligible persons from the channels i. e. the Translators and Assistants and made its recommendations on merit-cum-seniority rule with reference to their past record. consistently above average performance, preferable for the last several years with no significant adverse remark, as far as possible, has been our criterion. The recommendations (Annexure R-9) mention in paragraph 14 that the Committee considered all eligible persons from the channels i. e. the Translators and Assistants and made its recommendations on merit-cum-seniority rule with reference to their past record. consistently above average performance, preferable for the last several years with no significant adverse remark, as far as possible, has been our criterion. Thus it is clear that petitioner B. K. Shitoleys claim was considered by the Judges Committee before it submitted its recommendations to the Chief Justice. Since the confidential reports of an employee are not accessible to him, we sent for the same and examined them. A comparative chart was prepared and given to us on our direction showing the general confidential remarks about the petitioner and respondents 2 to 8 for the years 1974 to 1983. The judges Committee had examined these remarks and found that respondents 2 to 8 were more meritorious than the petitioner. It could not be said that the Judges Committee overlooked any fact or circumstance having a bearing on the merit of the petitioner as was noted in the case of R. S. Parashar. It is, therefore not possible to interfere with the assessment of merit made by the Judges Committee and approved by the Chief Justice. Thus, as the rule stands today, it is not possible to interfere with the assessment of merit made by the Chief Justice on the recommendations of the Judges Committee. ( 26. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged one more point. He contended that the recommendations of the Judges Committee suffer from the vice of hostile discrimination and non-compliance with the principles of natural justice because the committee gave personal hearing to some candidates while no such hearing was given to the petitioner. It appears from the return and also found from the recommendations of the Judges Committee that personal hearing was given to such candidates only who had been recommended earlier by the Departmental Promotion Committee but who according to the Judges Committee did not fulfil the requirement of comparative superior merit, it may be noted that Chief Justice had passed orders of promotion on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and later he had*constituted a Judges Committee for considering representations by the superseded persons against those appointments. It was in this context that the Judges Committee rightly considered it proper to give personal hearing to such persons who had been recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee but were not considered fit for promotion by the Judges Committee on the merit-cum-seniority rule. The question of giving personal hearing to all the candidates, therefore, did not arise. It was conceded that the candidates who had made representations or who were eligible for promotion had no right of personal hearing before the Judges Committee. This argument about hostile discrimination or non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, therefore, has no substance and it is rejected. ( 27. ) B. M. Shitoleys petition, therefore, cannot succeed. The petition is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. S. S. SHARMA, J. :- I respectfully agree with the conclusions reached by my learned brother Shri K. N. Shukla, J. in the two cases - M. P. No. 2045 of 1983 (R. S. Parashar vs. High Court of M. P. and others and M. P. No. 2711 of 1983 B. M. Shitoley vs. High Court of M. P. and others.)However, in Parashars case (M. P. No. 2045 of 1983), I would like to add as follows in Santram vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1967 SC 1910 at page 1916), their Lordships negatived the conclusion that the introduction of the idea of merit into the procedure of promotion brings in an element of personal evaluation, and that personal evaluation, opens the door to the abuses of nepotism and favouritism resulting in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Their Lordships then observed- The question of a proper promotion policy depends on various conflicting factors. It is obvious that the only method in which absolute objectivity can be ensured is for all promotions to be made entirely on grounds of seniority. That means that if a post falls vacant,it is filled by the person who has served longest in the post immediately below. But the trouble with the seniority system is that it is so objective, that it fails to take any account of personal merit. That means that if a post falls vacant,it is filled by the person who has served longest in the post immediately below. But the trouble with the seniority system is that it is so objective, that it fails to take any account of personal merit. As a system it is fair to every official except the best ones; an official has nothing to win or lose provided he does not actually become so inefficient that disciplinary action has to be taken against him. But, though the system is fair to the official concerned, it is a heavy burden on the public and a great strain on the efficient handling of public business. The problem, therefore, is how to ensure reasonable prospect of advancement to all officiate and at the same time to protect the public interest in having post filled by the most able man? In other words, the question is how to find a correct balance between seniority and merit in a proper promotion policy. In this connection leonard D. White has stated as follows : "the principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incombents for the higher positions, while maintaining the morale of the whole organization. The main interest to be served is the public interest, not the personal interest of members of the official group concerned. The public interest is best secured when reasonable opportunities for promotion exist for all qualifed employees, when really superior civil servants are enabled to move as rapidly up the promotion ladder as their merits deserve and as vacancies occur, and when selection for promotion is made on the sole basis of merit. For the merit system ought to apply as specifically in making promotions as in original recruitment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employees often prefer rule of seniority, by which the eligible longest in service is automatically awarded the promotion. Within limits, seniority is entitled to consideration as one criterion of selection. It tends to eliminate favouritism or the suspicion thereof; and experience is certainly a factor in the making of a successful employee. Seniority is given most weight in promotions from the lowest to other subordinate positions. As employees move up the ladder of responsibility, it is entitled to less and less weight. It tends to eliminate favouritism or the suspicion thereof; and experience is certainly a factor in the making of a successful employee. Seniority is given most weight in promotions from the lowest to other subordinate positions. As employees move up the ladder of responsibility, it is entitled to less and less weight. When seniority is made the sole determining factor at any level, it is a dangerous guide. It does not follow that the employee longest in service in a particular grade is best suited for promotion to a higher grade; the very opposite may be true. " (Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, 4th Edn. , pp. 380, 383 ). 2. From the averments made in paragraph 12 of the petition and the return it is clear that the adverse entries with regard to the petitioner for the years 1980 and 1981 both of which were written on 18-8-1981 were not communicated to the petitioner although they formed part of the service record. Admittedly no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to make any representation against those adverse entries though this should have been done before the stage for selection had reached. It is apparent that these adverse entries must have been taken into account while considering the question of petitioners merit. 3. Their Lordships in Gurdial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab and others ( AIR 1979 sc 1622 ) in paragraph 17 observed that - "the principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object partially being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. " [see also P. C. Pradhan vs. Union of India and others (1980 M. P. L. J. 820), R. B. Berry vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (M. P. No. 184 of 1980, decided on 19th oct. 1981) and S. M. Korbu vs. State of M. P. and others (M. P. No. 1030 of l981 decided on 28th April 1982) ). 4. 1981) and S. M. Korbu vs. State of M. P. and others (M. P. No. 1030 of l981 decided on 28th April 1982) ). 4. In Mir Ghulam Hussan and others vs. The Union of India and others ( AIR 1973 SC 1138 at page 1141), the suggestion that since there was nothing adverse against the petitioners they were entitled to be selected was negatived. It was laid down that "promotion is not made on the basis of absence of complaint but on the basis of positive merit. Absence of adverse remarks is no criterion of the quality of an officer. " 5. Even in Union of India vs. M. L. Capoor and others ( AIR 1974 SC 87 at page 96, paragraph 22), their Lordships observed that- the Selection Committee has an unrestricted choice of the best available talent, from amongst eligible candidates, determined by reference to reasonable criteria applied in assessing the facts revealed by service records of all eligible candidates so that merit and not mere seniority is the governing factor. " In Capoors case (supra) Honble Mathew J. in paragraph 55 of the judgment has in the context considered the meaning of the word supersession. He observed that- "i should have thought that the expression supersession in the context is quite inapt, as it has overtoned that seniority per se has some claim for preferential treatment. When you talk of supersession, it normally means that the person superseded has a preferential claim. But, ex hypothesi the selection is primarily on the basis of merit and suitability. Therefore, though strictly speaking, there can be no question of supersession when a senior is passed over, as the selection is based primarily on merit and suitability, the expression was used probably to indicate that seniority is a factor of great weight to be taken into consideration for inclusion in the select list. " Order accordingly.