Judgment S.B.Sanyal, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of Annexures 3 and 3-A dated 16th August, 1986, and 13th August, 1986, respectively, by which some of the Personal Assistants of this Court have been promoted temporarily to officiate as Senior Personal Assistants, by superseding the petitioner. FACTS 2. The petitioners case is that he was appointed as a stenographer on 13-6-1980 by Memo No. 3872 (Annexure 1) in the High Court. It is said that there are three separate and distinct cadres of employees in the High Court. It is said that the posts of Senior Personal Assistants are filled up by promotion from Stenographers/Personal Assistants, on the basis of their seniority-cum-merit, and, similarly, posts of Private Secretaries are filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the Senior Personal Assistants. There is also one post of Principal Private Secretary, which is also filled up from amongst the Senior Private Secretaries on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The petitioner claims that during the selection of stenographers, in the year 1980, the petitioners position in the selection list stood at serial No. 3, whereas respondent Nos. 5 to 12 were placed below him. It has been alleged that in order to get promotion to the grade of Senior Personal Assistant, Stenographer/P. A. has to pass a short-hand test at the rate of 130 words per minute and also a test known as "Peremptory order examination test" i.e., to compose peremptory orders that are passed by the Hon ble Judges when the cases are listed for orders. The petitioner passed the short-hand test which was communicated to him by Memo No. 9662-66 dated 3-9-1985 (Annexure 2). 3. In 1988, some posts of Senior Personal Assistants fell vacant, consequent upon the retirement of some Senior Personal Assistants and some posts were also created. The petitioner having not passed the peremptory order examination test in February 1986, some persons, who were junior to the petitioner and thus eligible, were promoted to the posts of Senior Personal Assistants. The petitioner has no grievance about it and, therefore, he struck out the names of those respondents from his writ petition who bore serial Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10. It is said that the petitioner became eligible for consideration to the post of Senior Personal Assistant on 28-5-1986 when he passed the peremptory order examination test. The petitioner has no grievance about it and, therefore, he struck out the names of those respondents from his writ petition who bore serial Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10. It is said that the petitioner became eligible for consideration to the post of Senior Personal Assistant on 28-5-1986 when he passed the peremptory order examination test. In August 1986, some vacant posts of Senior Personal Assistants were decided to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Stenographers/ Personal Assistants and the petitioner along with others were called for interview for the said purpose and he participated in the said interview, as by then he had become eligible for consideration. It is said that in the interview of August 1986, four persons junior to the petitioner were promoted, but not the petitioner, and he was thus, superseded. The persons who superseded the petitioner are respondent Nos. 7, 8, 11 and 12 and have been named in Annexures 3 and 3-A, which are sought to be quashed. It is said that further vacancies to the post of Senior Personal Assistant are likely to arise, and even though the petitioner has not been communicated of any adverse remarks and his service records being satisfactory, except that once the petitioner was issued show cause notice, and in that proceeding he was warned for availing leave in dribblets. 4. In the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that peremptory order examination test has been enforced from 24-8-1985 and no person after 24-8-1985 has been promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant without passing the said test. The petitioner became eligible for consideration on 26-54986, and in the interview of 13th August, 1986, on consideration, he was not found fit for promotion compared to his juniors and, therefore, he was superseded for the first time. In paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit, the assertion of the petitioner of having clean service record has been denied. It has been stated that during the period 1-7-1980 to 12-4-1985, besides exhausting the full casual leave of 16 days in a year, he took a total of one year and four days leave during the said period and he was let off with a warning that he must eschew the habit of remaining on leave for long period, and that too in dribblets. It has been further stated that at some point of time, even after exhausting his leave, he absented himself, for which he was warned, because his absence on leave caused great dislocation of Courts work. The post of Senior Personal Assistant demanded a far more rigorous test of work and conduct, which the petitioner lacked, and those who superseded him, apart from better performance, had a clean record of service compared to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was ordered to be kept under watch for one year by order dated 13-8-1986. It has also, been stated on behalf of the respondents that some more persons have been promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant during the period 5th August, 1986 to 15th April, 1987, when the petitioner was kept under watch, and on 28-4-1988, an order has been passed by the Acting Chief Justice, while promoting other persons as Senior Personal Assistant, that a post for the petitioner be kept reserved and on expiration of one year from 13-8-1986, he will be considered to fill up the said vacant post on the basis of the result of his performance being watched. It is said that in view of the pendency of this writ petition, no order for his promotion could be considered and passed. 5. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in cases of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, process of interview is unknown in law. The process of interview is further vitiated because no criteria has been laid down for the said interview. He further submitted that the other of Hon ble the Chief Justice dated 13-8-1986, by which the petitioner was ordered to be kept under watch for one year is punitive, arbitrary and perverse and amounts to punishment under the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935. Mr. Kamlapati Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was considered also with other eligible candidates in August 1986 and was not found fit and, therefore, juniors to the petitioner were promoted. In August 1986, the Hon ble the Chief Justice directed to keep the petitioners performance under watch for a period of one year for observing his fitness for promotion as Senior Personal Assistant, and this cannot be termed as punishment. In August 1986, the Hon ble the Chief Justice directed to keep the petitioners performance under watch for a period of one year for observing his fitness for promotion as Senior Personal Assistant, and this cannot be termed as punishment. The petitioner became eligible for consideration for promotion along with his juniors only on and from 13-8-1987 and, as a matter of fact post for him has been kept reserved since that date. 6. Having considered the respective cases of other parties, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in cases where a person is required to be promoted to a higher post on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the merit of the respective candidates can be completely overlooked because merit as such plays no part in such promotion. It is true that in a case of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the dominant role may be of seniority, but at the same time, the candidate seeking promotion must be meritorious as well compared to his juniors. In order to adjudge the merit of a candidate, some modality has to be found out. The modality adopted by the High Court was to interview the candidates. This does have nexus to the object sought to be achieved. It is one of the fair methods to adjudge the merit of a candidate. The minimum qualification for promotion to a higher post entitles a candidate only for consideration which has been done. A person having minimum qualification only means he is eligible for consideration for promotion, and not ipso facto promotion to a higher post because the promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. There may be candidates whose speed may be far more than 130 words per minute in short-hand and the transcribed material may be faultless or less faulty compared to others. Similarly, the composition of the peremptory order may be of superior quality compared to others, so on and so forth. There could have been merit in the petitioners grievance if the petitioner was not considered along with his juniors in the interview of August 1986, Admittedly, he was considered along with his juniors in that interview and was not found fit and, therefore, the Hon ble Chief Justice ordered to keep him under watch for one year. There could have been merit in the petitioners grievance if the petitioner was not considered along with his juniors in the interview of August 1986, Admittedly, he was considered along with his juniors in that interview and was not found fit and, therefore, the Hon ble Chief Justice ordered to keep him under watch for one year. This cannot be held to be punitive in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the contrary, opportunities to improve within a period of one year was provided for, so that he may be considered for future vacancies on the superior post. 7. The job of Senior Personal Assistant of the Hon ble Judges is of extreme responsibility. There is an implied terms and conditions of service, which is that a Senior Personal Assistant must make himself available whenever his services are needed by the Hon ble Judge, irrespective of the holidays and leave to which other Assistants are entitled to. For that matter, he cannot even have a fixed period of work like other Assistants, i.e., from 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. He usually is required to render his service after Court hours or before the Court hours for taking dictation as is convenient to the Hon ble Judge to whom he is attached. He is further required to work even on Saturdays and Sundays, when most of the reserved judgments are dictated at the residential chamber of the Hon ble Judges, even though Sunday is a holiday for other Assistants. In one way, his leave and holidays are co-extensive with that of the Judge to whom he is attached. In short, there must be a complete coherence between the Hon ble Judge and the Senior Personal Assistants and the Private Secretaries in the discharge of the official duties of a Judge. There is no place for persons who are shirkers and who are more conscious about their leave and holidays. I do not mean to suggest that this will mean making oneself available to the Hon ble Judges even though they are ill or in cases emergency befalling them. Those are only exceptional circumstances when they may not be required to discharge their official duties. I do not mean to suggest that this will mean making oneself available to the Hon ble Judges even though they are ill or in cases emergency befalling them. Those are only exceptional circumstances when they may not be required to discharge their official duties. There has to be mutual adjustment and accommodation between the Judge and the Senior Personal Assistant and the Private Secretary since they conjointly perform the work of the Court, If this implied terms and conditions of service do not suit the stenographer, he must not aspire for promotion to the post of Senior Personal Assistant to a Judge of the High Court. If a person is found subsequently deficient in the discharge of his duties in this regard, he may also have to face reversion to the post of stenographer. 8. In (he case of the petitioner, his past record is indicative of his deficiency to work as a Senior Personal Assistant to an Hon ble Judge, inasmuch as he absented himself for one year and four days (exclusive of casual leave) in a period of four years and seven months approximately and he maintained the habit of taking long leave on frequent occasions even in the year 1986, which must have dislocated Courts work. He has also been warned in the past after a proper show cause. 9. It now appears that the High Court bearing in view the performance of work of the petitioner did reserve a post for him when Bhola Nath Ojha and Anil Kumar Sinha, juniors to the petitioner, were being considered for promotion to the post of Senior Personal Assistant but in view of the pendency of the writ petition the case of the petitioner was kept in abeyance. However, the keeping of a post reserved for him shows the High Courts concern about the petitioner. If the petitioner has successfully acquitted himself during the period of one year he was kept under watch, the respondent High Court shall, consider to promote him to the post of Senior Personal Assistant, which post has earlier been reserved by the order of the Acting Chief Justice. It is needless to say, if the petitioner deserves to be promoted to a vacancy that arose after 12-8-1987 he will rank senior to those juniors who have already been promoted as Senior Personal Assistant to the posts falling vacant after 12-8-1987. 10. It is needless to say, if the petitioner deserves to be promoted to a vacancy that arose after 12-8-1987 he will rank senior to those juniors who have already been promoted as Senior Personal Assistant to the posts falling vacant after 12-8-1987. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations and directions. There will be no order as to costs. R.N.Lal, J. 11 I agree.