JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The petitioner has challenged Annexure-4 dated 8.6.1981 by which he was intimated that opposite party No. 3 had been allowed joint seniority with him as well as Annexure-5 dated 4.6.1981 by which opposite party No. 3 was promoted to a higher grade ignoring his seniority. He has further prayed that he be given seniority over opposite party No. 3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Ware houseman under opposite party No. 1 on 21.6.1982 (Annexure - 1). In the recruitment opposite party No. 3 was assigned a lower position in the merit list. In due course, the petitioner was promoted to the grade of Storage and Inspection Officer. Opposite Party No. 1 circulated a letter on 4.6.1978 (Annexure-2) indicating the seniority in the grade of Storage and Inspection Officer as on 31.3.1976 (Annexure-2(i)), in which the name of the petitioner found place above opposite party No. 3. Though both of them had joined the same grade on the same day, on consideration of merit, the petitioner was assigned a higher position. Thus, in top grade of Storage and Inspection Officer the petitioner was senior to opposite party No. 3. A Departmental Promotion Committee held a meeting on 12.1.1981 to consider the question of promotion to the grade of Seniority Storage and Inspection Officers. In the said meeting of the Committee, despite seniority, the case of the petitioner was not at all promoted to the grade of Senior Storage and Inspection Officer. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation to opposite party No. 1 on 19.1.1981 (An-nexure-3) and in reply thereto, the Managing Director of opposite party No. 1 intimated him by letter dated 8.6.1981 (Annexure-4) to the effect that both the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 had been given joint seniority by order dated 24.12.1976 in view of the fact that both of them were promoted to the rank of selection grade Superintendent and subsequently to the grade of Junior Storage and Inspection Officer on the same day. He was further intimated that promotion to the higher grade was considered with reference to seniority and record of service. The petitioner has averred that he was completely in dark as to how opposite party No. 3, who stood as junior to him, was given joint seniority along with him. He was further intimated that promotion to the higher grade was considered with reference to seniority and record of service. The petitioner has averred that he was completely in dark as to how opposite party No. 3, who stood as junior to him, was given joint seniority along with him. Before passing such an order, no notice was given to him and the principle of natural justice was violated. The order of joint seniority was mala fide and prejudicial to his interest in service. Had his seniority not been altered, there was every possibility of his case being considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the grade of Senior Storage and Inspection Officer and in view of his meritorious service he could be promoted in place of opposite party No. 3. He made a further representation to opposite party No. 2 (Annexure-7), but unfortunately the same was rejected by Annexure-8. The petitioner, accordingly, has not only prayed for quashing Annexures 4 and 5 but has also claimed seniority above opposite party No. 3 and consideration of his case for promotion to the grade of Senior Storage and Inspection Officer in preference to opposite party No. 3 and to give him all service and financial benefits retrospectively. 3. Opposite parties No. I and 2 in their counter-affidavit have stated that Annexure-2(i) was a tentative gradation list of all the employees and not only of Storage and Inspection Officer. It depicts a part of the gradation list in respect of Storage and Inspection Officers only. In respect of Annexure-2, opposite party No. 3 submitted a representation dated 14.6.1974 (Annexure - A/1) stating therein that the petitioner and himself had joined the post of Storage and Inspection Officer on the same day. Therefore, instead of showing the petitioner as his senior, he should at least be bracketed to the former in the matter of seniority. The representation was put up before the Managing Director of opposite party No. 1 on 24.2.1976 and he directed that the names of the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 be bracketed in the gradation list. It is further averred that a Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 12.1.1981 to consider the question of promotion to the grade of Senior Storage and Inspection Officer. It is further averred that a Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 12.1.1981 to consider the question of promotion to the grade of Senior Storage and Inspection Officer. The names of the petitioner, opposite party No. 3 and one G.S. Banerjee, who was serving as Junior Storage and Inspection Officer, were placed before the Committee. The Committee recommended the name of opposite party No. 3 for promotion on the basis that he was senior to the petitioner. But subsequently the mistake was noticed because both the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 stood bracketed in the gradation list and this fact was brought to the notice of the Committee which again held a meeting on 30.5.1981. The Committee considered the cases of the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 and found that the latter was more meritorious in service and possessed a better record of work than the petitioner and so they recommended him for promotion to the grade of Storage and Inspection Officer in preference to the petitioner (Annexure - C.1). It is submitted that on the basis of seniority alone, if any, the petitioner could not claim promotion. Moreover, when the Departmental Promotion Committee duly considered his case for promotion and found him unsuitable, but preferred opposite party No. 3, the petitioner can have no grievance on the ground of discrimination. 4. Though the writ petition was filed in the year 1981, opposite party, No. 3 chose to file his counter affidavit on 23.6.1988. Therefore, on account of delay, the counter affidavit filed by him has been ignored. 5. Mr. S.N. Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:- (i) Although the petitioner was shown in the tentative gradation list as senior to opposite party No. 3, on representation being made by the latter and without notice to the former, the final gradation list was drawn up placing the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 bracketed for the purpose of computing seniority. Thereby the petitioner fell a victim for violation of principles of natural justice; and (ii) While considering the cases of promotion of the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 to the higher post of Senior Storage and Inspection Officer, due consideration was not given to the seniority of the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. Mr. S.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. A.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3, on the other hand urged that even assuming the petitioner ranked senior to opposite party No. 3, he could not claim promotion to the higher grade as a matter of right. He was entitled, for consideration for promotion and as a matter of fact, his case was considered along with the case of opposite party No. 3 and the latter was found to be more suitable for promotion to the higher grade. So, in the absence of any allegation or proof of any mala fide either against the Departmental Promotion Committee or against opposite parties 1 and 2, neither the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee nor the order of promotion of opposite party No. 3 can be set aside in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended by Mr. A.C. Mohanty that the seniority of the petitioner was not disturbed. He remained where he was, but on the representation of opposite party No. 3 his position was upgraded and thereby no prejudice was caused to the former. Therefore, even though no notice might have been served on him, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. 6. The undisputed facts are that in the tentative seniority list (Annexure-2(i) which was circulated by letter, Annexure-2, the petitioner was shown above opposite party No. 3. Their names were not bracketed. That indicates that tentatively the petitioner was treated as senior to opposite party No. 3 as on 31.3.1976 in the grade of Storage and Inspection Officer. Opposite party No. 3 made a representation to opposite party No. 1 stating therein that both the petitioner and himself, had joined the post of Storage and Inspection Officer on the same day, but he was placed below the former. He therefore, claimed that both of them should be placed bracketed in the seniority list. The representation seems to have been allowed by order of the Managing Director dated 24.12.1976 and both the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 were given joint seniority which, in other words, means, in the gradation list the names of both were bracketed. He therefore, claimed that both of them should be placed bracketed in the seniority list. The representation seems to have been allowed by order of the Managing Director dated 24.12.1976 and both the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 were given joint seniority which, in other words, means, in the gradation list the names of both were bracketed. This fact, for the first time was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 8.6.1981 (Annexure-4) by the Managing Director in response to the representations dated 19.1.1981 and 24.1.1981 after opposite party No. 3 was promoted to the grade of Senior Storage and Inspection Officer on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 30.5.1981 (Annexure-C/1). The aforesaid decision was taken because both of them were promoted to the grade of Superintendent and Junior Storage and Inspection Officer on the same day. 7. There are no rules governing appointment and promotion of employees of opposite party No. 1. In the absence of rules, the normal principle of promotion must be deemed to be seniority subject to elimination of the unfit. While adhering to this principle, seniority is given due weight and if two candidates are of equal merit, seniority prevails and the candidate who is senior is normally promoted to the higher grade. But if the senior on consideration of relative and comparable merit, is found unfit for promotion, in that event seniority has to be ignored. Therefore, in the case of promotion seniority is an important factor to reckon with. 8. In the tentative gradation list (Annexure-2/1) the name of the petitioner found place above the name of opposite party No. 3. Normally, therefore, the petitioner was tentatively considered to be senior to opposite party No. 3. Therefore, the petitioner could have no grievance against the tentative seniority list. But opposite party No. 3 had a grievance and, therefore, he made a representation (Annexure-A/1) and as already stated above for the first time the petititoner was intimated by letter dated 8.6.1981 (Annexure-4) to the effect that both of them had been given joint seniority, in other words, the names of both were bracketed for the purpose of seniority in the gradation list. In official vocabulary, ordinarily one hardly comes across something like joint seniority or two persons being bracketed in the gradation list for the purpose of seniority which was a novel approach by the Managing Director of opposite party No. 1 in the arena of conditions of service to place two employees in the same position in the gradation list for the purpose of seniority. While he did so, the seniority of the petitioner, as shown in the tentative gradation list (Annexure-2(i) was prejudicially affected, inasmuch as the petitioner remained contended till he came to know about the promotion of opposite party No. 3 to the higher grade by Annexure-5. Had his name remained in the gradation list as senior to opposite party No. 3, his seniority would have been given due weightage at the time of promotion. Therefore, the Managing Director while disposing of the representation of opposite party No. 3 (Annexure-A/1) should have served a notice on the petitioner about the former's claim or, in the worst, soon after allowing the representation, he should have intimated the petitioner about the result of the representation of opposite party No. 3 having both of them been given joint seniority, so that long before the question of promotion to the higher cadre was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 30.5.1981, the petitioner could have approached either the higher authorities or the Court of law for redress of his own grievance. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that while allowing the representation of opposite party No. 3, (Annexure-A/1) ana placing him along with the petitioner in a bracketed position in the gradation list principle of natural justice was violated. 9. Despite the aforesaid finding it is not possible to interfere with the promotion of opposite party No. 3 because of the undisputed facts stated in the counter which I do not want to repeat. On the assumption that opposite party No. 3 was senior to the petitioner, the Departmental Promotion Committee in the meeting held on 12.1.1981 ignored the case of the latter for promotion to the grade of Senior Storage and Inspection Officer. But when the mistake was realised, the decision was revoked and the Departmental Promotion Committee hejd another meeting on 30.5.1981 and considered the names of both the petitioner and opposite party No. 3. But when the mistake was realised, the decision was revoked and the Departmental Promotion Committee hejd another meeting on 30.5.1981 and considered the names of both the petitioner and opposite party No. 3. It is worthwhile to reiterate that the petitioner was entitled for consideration for promotion to the higher grade, but he was not entitled to claim promotion as a matter of right. See Anil Chandra Mitra Vs. State of Orissa and Another. [The Departmental Promotion Committee found and recorded that opposite party No. 3 was more suitable than the petitioner and recommended his case for promotion to the higher grade. There is no allegation nor any proof that the said Committee acted mala fide and showed favour to opposite party No. 3. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction shall not act as a Court of appeal so as to review the material and service records placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee which impelled them to prefer opposite party No. 3 for promotion in comparison to the petitioner. It has not also been established that the recommendation of the said Committee was wholly illegal and perverse, see Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others. This being the position I hardly find any reasonable ground for setting aside the order of promotion of opposite party No. 3. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed . 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. V. Gopalswamy, J:- I agree. Final Result : Dismissed