S. G. DODDAKALE GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE Selection of respondents 3 and 4 as assistant Secretary and Superintendent, respectively in the establishment of the first respondent by placing them above the petitioner in select list is challenged in this petition. ( 2 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the petitioner was senior to respondents in the cadre of Assistants from which cadre promotions were made to the cadre of Assistant Secretary/superintendent. The Board in its resolution dated 20-11-1980 resolved to abolish the post of secretary and in its place to appoint, one Assistant Secretary in the pay scale of Rs. 750- 1525 and two superintendents in the pay scale of Rs. 660-1300. It was also resolved! to fill up these posts on seniority-cum-merit basis. For the purpose of assessment of merit, a screening Committee was constituted and the Board accepted the recommendation of the Screening Committee in toto. The screening Committee ranked 3rd and 4th respondents and petitioner at Sl. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. ( 3 ) THE recommendations of the Screening Committee which has been approved by the Board read thus : "considering all the aspects such as seniority, Qualification, previous experience, present working capacity, and official records such as personal files, personal registers and confidential reports, performance during the interview of each of the Assistants and Junior engineers, it is recommended that the promotion of the officials may be considered in the following gradation :"assistants shriyuths 1. R. Sathyanarayana Singh. 2. K. Sridhara 3. Miss. Sharada 4. S. N. Ramamurthy. N. B. (1) After taking into account the confidential Reports as well as enquiry report, it was unanimously considered that keeping in view of the performance prior to 1977, Miss. C. Sharada, though the Senior most, may be placed at 3 in the order of selection for promotion. "except this note, neither the Screening Committee nor the Board have assigned any other reason for placing her below respondents 3 and 4 in the select list. The policy evolved for promotion was seniority-cum-merit. Contention of petitioner was that she should have been ranked at SI. No. 1 and promoted as Assistant Secretary when found suitable or meritorious for promotion having due regard to her seniority in the lower cadre. The policy evolved for promotion was seniority-cum-merit. Contention of petitioner was that she should have been ranked at SI. No. 1 and promoted as Assistant Secretary when found suitable or meritorious for promotion having due regard to her seniority in the lower cadre. ( 4 ) THE merit of the plea that her placing in the select list itself tantamounts to supersession, illegal and arbitrary has to be examined in the light of these undisputed facts and precedents of this Court and of Supreme court. ( 5 ) SUPREME Court in Sant Ram Sharma's case (A. I. R. 1967, SC 1910) has approved a passage from Leonard D. White's "introduction to Public Administration" which read thus:-"the principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher positions, while maintaining the morale of the whole organisation. 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 qualified 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 the 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. "supreme Court in Union of India v M. L. Capoor (A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 87) on examining the scope of Rules 4 and 5 of Indian Police service (Appointment by Promotion) regulations, 1955 :"4. Conditions of Eligibility for promotion 5. Preparation of a list of suitable of- ficers:- (1) The Committee shall prepare a list of such members of the State Civil Service as satisfy the condition specified in regulation 4 and as are held by the committee to be suitable for promotion to the service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The Selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority. (3) The names of the officers included in the list shall be arranged in order of seniority in the State Civil Service : provided that any junior officer who in the opinion of the Committee is of exceptional merit and suitability may be assigned a place in the list higher than that of officers senior to him. "has stated thus : -. . . . . . THE rule indicated that "supersession" here only means the preference given to juniors over the "superseded" officer for a place on the select list. The superseded officer may be given a position lower on the select list that his juniors in the State service or he may be excluded altogether from the list by his juniors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. A place on the approved select list certainly confers a right to be appointed, according to Rules 8 and 9, to cadre posts. Although, the process of assessment by the Selection Committee, and, thereafter, approval by the Union Public Service commission does not involve observance of the "audi alteram partem" rule in all its rigour and with all its implications, yet, it seems unfair to deprive a person suddenly of either an expectation to be placed, and, even more, of a place on a finalised select list, which confers certain valuable rights on him, without informing him of even the reasons for his proposed supersession before its approval. At any rate, Article 16 of our Constitution gives rights to government servants to be treated fairly and squarely, reasonably and impartially in matters relating to service. " (Emphasis supplied) in the same decision, it is stated thus:-"reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. The disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a ration raxus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. The disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a ration raxus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. " ( 6 ) THE supersession may be, by complete exclusion or placing a junior above the senior in the select list. If an officer was exceptionally meritorious and suitable, proviso to sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 5 provided for placing of junior official above the senior in select list. Assuming that there was no rule or regulation similar to the one referred to above, fairplay and justice required the screening committee/board to assign/ record reasons which weighed with them for placing a senior official below junior official and to deprive her of promotion as an Assistant secretary. Otherwise, the distinction that exists between promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and promotion by selection stands attenuated. ( 7 ) THIS Court in N. Srinath v State of mysore (1972 (1) Mys. L. J. 117) has stated thus:-"13. Another aspect of the matter is that whether the promotion be on seniority-cum-merit basis or by selection, it is impossible to promote a junior without considering the case of a senior. In the case of the first type of promotions, it is obvious that a senior must be considered first and that when he is found unfit, the case of the next junior may be considered. In the second category of promotions, the Promoting Authority must consider a sufficient number of persons in the lower cadre or a number which, in relation to promotional vacancies to be filled, is reasonably sufficient, at the top of the lower cadre for consideration. They should take the number from persons at the top, because both according to well known notions of merit in Government Service and according to the express provisions of the rule 4 of the Mysore Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, seniority is an element in the assessment of merit, and even in cases where promotion is by selection, due regard must be had for seniority also. "as per the ratio in Sant Ram Sharma's case and Srinath's case, seniority must be given due weight and a relevant criteria to be taken into consideration. "as per the ratio in Sant Ram Sharma's case and Srinath's case, seniority must be given due weight and a relevant criteria to be taken into consideration. Respondents while making selections on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the senior most person (petitioner) should have ranked at the top of the list as she was found suitable for promotion instead of topsyturvying her rank in the select list. On satisfaction of both - seniority and merit - it was not possible to make out what weighed with respondents to place her juniors above the petitioner in the select list. ( 8 ) RECORDS of the Screening Committee disclosed consideration of Enquiry Report, dated 9-5-1980 by the Executive Member regarding certain lapses committed by petitioner in discharge of her duties as Assistant though proceeding has culminated in a final order of 'warning'. The note extracted above, except referring to the Enquiry report does not refer to final order of the disciplinary authority. Normally Confidential Reports of eligible candidates for block period of three years prior to date of promotion are looked into and a decision taken. Unfortunately, in the instant case, performance of petitioner event anterior or prior to 1977 has been taken into consideration and not possible to make out whether the same yardstick was applied while considering the cases of respondents 3 and 4 for promotion or for placing them above petitioner. Thus, irrelevant considerations have weighed and/or have adopted different criteria to get over the seniority. Hence, impugned ranking must be held to be arbitrary, illegal and violative of fundamental right guaranteed under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, writ petition succeeds; Rank assigned to petitioner in select list is hereby quashed; respondents 1 and 2 are directed to refix her rank in the light of the ratio extracted above, as she has been found suitable for promotion and grant all consequential benefits that flows from such refutation. To comply within four months. Rule made absolute. --- *** --- .